LECTURES 



CHURCH GOVERNMENT 

CONTAINING 

\ 

OBJECTIONS TO THE EPISCOPAL SCHEME. 

DELIVERED IN 

THE THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, AXDOVER, 

AUGUST, MDCCCXLIII. 



BY LEONARD^'WOODS, D. D. 

Professor of Christian Theology. 



NEW YORK: 
PUBLISHED BY TURNER & HAYDEN, 

FEBRUARY, 

1844. 



Tm Library 
OP C^neRBSs 

WASHmOTON 



Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1844, by 

WILLIAM B. HAYDEN, 
in the Clerk's Office of the Southern District of New York. 



ANDO VER : 

ALLEN, MORRILL AND WARD WELL, 

Printers, 




TO THE PRESENT MEMBERS AND ALL FORMER MEMBERS 
OF THIS SEMINARY ; 

My beloved brethren ; 

The following Lectures, which are published in compliance 
with the request of those w^ho heard them, 1 take the liberty to 
dedicate to you, in token of my esteem and affection for you, 
and my earnest desire that you may all enjoy the gracious pres» 
ence and blessing of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. 

Yours in sincere brotherly love, 

LEONARD WOODS. 

Theological Seminary^ ") 
Andover^ Feb. ]844. ) 



CONTENTS. 



LECTURE I. 

Characteristics of the Seminary, page 1. — Motives for undertak- 
ing the discussion, 2. — Proposed manner of conducting it, 3. 

Preliminary Remarks, 4 — 12 

(1) All Christians together form one body, 4. — And they should 
be united in love and fellowship, 5. — Not necessary to have 
the same forms, 6. — Good men and their errors to be kept dis- 
tinct, 7. — (2) Some definite form of church government neces- 
sary, 8. — (3) The Scriptures our guide, 9. — May we vary from 
them on account of a change of circumstances, 10-12. — Two 
forms of church government, Prelacy, and popular govern- 
ment, 12. — Prelacy described by Hooker, 12. 

Objections to Prelacy. 
(1) JVothing in Scripture in favor of it, 13-34. — Jewish Priest- 
hood, 13. — Christ's appointment of the Seventy and of the 
Twelve considered, 15-20. — Matt. 18: 18, examined — How 
applied by Episcopalians, 18-19. — Christ's instructions, 20-28. 
Bishop De Lancey's argument from Christ's promise. Matt, 
28 : 20, pp. 21-28. 

LECTURE II. 

Prelacy not authorized by anything in the Acts of the Apostles, 
29-32. — Bishops at this day proceed differently from the 
Apostles, 29, 30. — Disputes at Antioch, Acts xv, 31. — Paul's 
address to the elders at Ephesus, Acts xx, 32. — Prelacy not 
supported by the Epistles, 32-37. — Paul's address to the Phi- 
lippians, 32. — Ephes. 4 : 11, " Christ gave some Apostles," 



vi 



CONTENTS. 



etc., 33. — Illustration from this Seminary, 33, 34. — " Whom I 
delivered unto Satan, 1 Tim. 1 : 20, p. 34. — 2d. Objection — 
JS'ew Testament opposed to Episcopacy^ 37-55. — As to the treat- 
ment of offenders, Matt. 18 : 15 — 17, p. 38. — Paul's direction 
how to treat the offender in the Corinthian church, 39. — Pro- 
ceedings, Acts xv, 40. — Do the Episcopalians proceed thus 
41, 42. — Suppose a different representation of the matter in 
Scripture, 43. — Have circumstances changed so as to justify 
a departure from precept and example as to discipline 44-47. 
J^ew Testament opposed to different orders in the ministry, 47- 
55.— Acts, 13 : 1—3, p. 48.— Acts, xx, 49.— Tit. 1 : 5-7, p. 51. 
Deacons, 51. — Laying on the hands of the Presbyters, 1 Tim. 
4: 14, p. 52.-1 Pet. 4 : 1-3, p. 53.— Reynolds, Burnet, Hol- 
land, Paley, and Onderdonk acknowledge Bishops and Pres- 
byters to have been the same, 54. 

LECTURE III. 

The Fathers not inspired, nor instructed orally by the Jlpostles to 
make alterations, 57-60. — Arguments from early practice ex- 
amined, 60. — Ecclesiastical History as to Prelacy and Infant 
Baptism, 61-65. — Testimony of Chrysostom, Theodoret, Ire- 
naeus, particularly Jerome, 62. — Another supposition, 65-66. 
— Early practice cannot bind us, 66-68. — Saying of Tertul- 
lian, " whatever is first is true," etc., 68. — The Fathers not 
agreed, — and if agreed, no authority as to different orders, 68- 
69. — Reasons for change, 69-76. — Introduction of Prelacy by 
the Fathers unauthorized, 72. — Prelacy did not prevail imme- 
diately after the Apostles, 76-81. — Three propositions, 77. — 
Authors referred to, 80. — If Episcopalians could find no evi- 
dence of Prelacy in the first churches, would they renounce 
it.? 81. 

LECTURE IV. 
<Mpostolic succession. How this doctrine is held by High church- 
men, 83-84. — Quotation from Edinburgh Review, 84-87. — 
Quotation from Whately, 87-89. — Quotation from Usher and 
Peter King, 89.— The ministry divinely appointed but in dif- 



CONTENTS. 



VIJ 



ferent ways, 90. — Illustration from civil government, 92-97. 
— How Episcopalians regard civil government, 94. — Succes- 
sion as a fact, 95. — Proper conduct of ministers as to rules of 
order among different denominations, 97-99, — Tlie subject 
placed on the ground of expediency^ 99-111. — Are Episcopal 
ministers and churches better than others, 101-104. — Prelacy- 
introduces a hurtful distinction among ministers, 105-106. — 
Injures and degrades the inferior clergy, 106-109. — Hinders 
church members from doing their duty, 109-111. 

LECTURE V. 

The Episcopal scheme imposes burdensome restrictions^ 113-24. — 
Reading prayers, 113-15. — Dick's objections to the Liturgy, 
115-16. — Why not prescribe sermons, 116-18. — Churching of 
women, ] 18-19. — Liturgy faulty, 119-35. — Irksome uniformi- 
ty and particularity, 120-3. — Arrangement of services with- 
out reason, 123-4. — Baptismal service — Baptismal Regenera- 
tion, 124-33. — HobarVs explanation, conditional title, etc., 127 
-32. — Sponsors, 129-32. — Why not a second form of the Bap- 
tismal service, as in other cases, 132-3. — Unscriptural stan- 
dard of character, 133-35. — In the Funeral service, 133-4. — In 
the Order of Confirmation, 134-5. — Episcopacy retains many 
of the additions to gospel instructions made in the Romish 
church, 135-43. — Holy days, 137-41. — Mode of Baptism among 
some of the Fathers, 138. — Paul testifies against observing 
days, etc., 139. — Burdensome observances, 139-40. — The 
whole machinery of the Episcopal church, 140-1. — Danger of 
beginning to introduce human inventions, 142-3. 

LECTURE VI. 
Ceremonials, 145-61. — Christ and the Apostles, 145. — Principle 
of Episcopalians as to rites and Ceremonies, 146. — Influence 
of the ceremonies of the Romish church, 147-8. — Influence of 
the simple rites of the Puritans, 149-50. — Lesson taught by 
the simplicity of the divine works, 150-2. — Simplicity of the 
appearance of Christ and the Apostles, 153-4. — Mtire of dig- 
nitaries in the Romish Church and of Episcopal Bishops, 155- 



Vlll 



CONTENTS. 



61. — Bishop's dress at consecration, 155-6. — Puts on addi- 
tional garments, 156-7. — Contrast between Romish and Epis- 
copal attire, and that of Christ and the Apostles, 157-9. — Ca- 
non of Church of England as to dress, 159-60. 

LECTURE VIl. 
The High church 'principle^ 163-92. — Rejected by many Episco- 
palians, — as Goode, a Layman, (Bowdler) and Hoadley, 164- 
7. — High churchism un-churches all non-Episcopal denomi- 
ations, 167. — No evidence in support of its claims^ 168-173. — 
Testimony of Mosheim, 170. — Hallam as to the Church of 
England, 170-1. — Neander, 171-3. — Candid feelings of Con- 
gregationalists and others toioards Episcopalians^ 174-82. — 
Example of the Puritan Emigrants, and their letter, 175-81. — 
What use Episcopalians make of all this, 179. — Proper use, 
179-80.— De Lancey sees "hostility or apathy," 182-3. — Right 
spirit among Episcopalians^ 183. — Mar Yohannan, his conduct 
and letter, 183-8. — High churchism would yield under a plen- 
tiful effusion of the Spirit, 188-91.— Will yield at the final 
judgment, 191-2. — The more candid Episcopalians subjected 
to difficulties, 192. — Special difficulties of those who take or- 
ders in the Episcopal church after having been in the minis- 
try before, 193. — Illustrated by the supposed case of Dr. Pay- 
son, 193-7. — Conclusion, 198. 



Erratum. 

Page 121, line 6 and 7 from bottom — erase the words—" who 
have the lesson in the Prayer Book right before them." 



CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 



LECTURE I. 

The Founders of this Seminary, and the subsequent 
Founders of Professorships in the Seminary, were de- 
scendants of the Puritans, and were all Congregational- 
ists. But they had no sectarian zeal, and no bigotry. 
On the contrary, they were men of uncommon enlarge- 
ment of mind, and true liberality of feeling. Accord- 
ingly they directed, that the Seminary should be open 
to all Protestants, who should possess the requisite lit- 
erary and moral qualifications. It has been open, and 
equally open to all such, and has granted not only its 
general privileges, but the benefits of its charity-funds, 
to young men of eight different denominations of evan- 
gelical Christians. And as to the Professors, it was 
only required that they should be Congregationalists^ or 
Presbyterians. Of the twelve men who have been 
officers in this Institution, two have been Presbyterians, 
and ten Congregationalists. Of these ten, five, perhaps, 
have been Congregationalists of what I may call the 
Massachusetts order, and five of the Connecticut order, 
that is, favorable to Consociations. In the choice of 
Professors, neither Founders, nor Trustees, nor Visitors 
have ever made any distinction between Congregation- 
alists and Presbyterians. 

1 



2 



LECTURE I. 



It is well known to you, my young brethren, as well 
as to my Colleagues in office, that I have heretofore 
stood aloof from the controversies of the day respecting 
the forms of Church Government. Indeed my reluc- 
tance to take any part in these controversies has been so 
strong, and has produced such an effect upon my course 
of instruction in this Seminary, as to occasion a sus- 
picion, that I really sided in opinion with other denomi- 
nations, particularly with Episcopalians. A wish to 
remove misapprehension on this subject, and to make 
known to you the real convictions of my own mind, is 
one of the motives which influence me to undertake 
the work on which I now enter. But my chief motive 
is, a deliberate and full persuasion, that God requires 
this service of me, and that I may, in this way, do 
something to advance the welfare of his kingdom. With 
this persuasion, I now commence the work; intending 
to cast off all restraint, and to speak out the honest 
sentiments of my heart. And, in truth, why should I 
not do so on this subject, as well as on any other ; espe- 
cially as this is one of the subjects expressly assigned to 
me by the Founders of the Seminary ? Instead there- 
fore of making any apology for bringing it before you 
more prominently at this time, I ought rather to confess 
it as a fault, that I have neglected it so long. 
/ In the treatment of this subject, I shall do as I am ac- 
customed to do in the treatment of all other subjects. 
Here in my own Lecture Room, while addressing my 
beloved pupils on a subject belonging to my own de- 
partment, I shall use perfect freedom. So far as I have 
settled opinions respecting Church Government, you 
may expect me to utter them with great plainness, 



CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 



3 



though it must be with brevity. I shall say, not all that 
I could say, but as much as the comparative importance 
of the subject seems to require, and as much as a suita- 
ble attention to other subjects in theology will permit. 
And in all that I say relative to Prelacy, I shall en- 
deavour to observe the divine precept which I have so 
often inculcated upon you, to speak the truth in love. 
At the same time, I shall use great frankness, both in 
defending my own opinions, and in pointing out what 
I conceive to be erroneous in the opinions of others. 
But I hope, through the grace of Christ, to be preserved 
from whatever would violate the laws of candor, or 
brotherly kindness. Protestant Episcopalians hold to 
the Protestant principle, that in regard to every subject, 
it is the right and duty of Christians to examine and 
judge for themselves, and, on all proper occasions, to 
state the reasons which satisfy them of the soundness of 
their own faith, and of the mistakes of those who differ 
from them. And I trust, that those who claim and ex- 
ercise this right, will not complain of me for doing the 
same. In these Lectures I shall exercise this right 
freely, without respect of persons. The word of God I 
hold to be our only guide, the infallible and sufficient 
rule of our faith and practice. Whatever truth is taught 
in the Scriptures, either expressly, or by plain implica- 
tion, is clothed with divine authority, and we are to re- 
ceive it with an implicit, confident faith. All that 
comes from God is to be treated wdth reverence and 
submission. We are not to call it in question. If God 
is the Teacher, we are to be learners. When He speaks, 
we are to hear, believe, and obey. But there is nothing 
of human origin, which is too high or sacred to be called 



4 



LECTURE I. 



in question. And there is no error, however sanctioned 
by antiquity, however extensively prevalent, and how- 
ever skilfully interwoven with weighty truths, which 
may not be fearlessly attacked, nay, which ought not to 
be openly rejected. The honor of God and the welfare 
of man are most effectually promoted, by truth without 
any mixture of error. The word of God, which is the 
fountain of divine truth, is perfect, and admits of no 
addition or improvement. But the minds of men, even 
the wisest and best, may be improved. Their habits of 
thinking and reasoning may be made more conformable 
to the truth, and their knowledge of divine things in- 
definitely increased. 

In order to do justice to my own views respecting 
Church Government, and to bring the subject advan- 
tageously before the members of this Seminary, I shall 
make a few preliminary remarks. 

My first remark is, that the whole number of true be- 
lievers on earth, taken together, form one society, one 
body, the spiritual church or kingdom of Christ. All 
believers, all real Christians stand in the same relation to 
Christ. They are all his disciples and followers. He 
is equally their Saviour and King. They are subject to 
the same supreme authority, and the same holy laws. 
They are all engaged in the same spiritual work, and 
are actuated by the same spiritual affection. They are 
interested in the same precious promises, and entitled to 
the same eternal inheritance. And they will all at last 
be united together in the same pure and blessed society 
in heaven. They also stand in substantially the same 
relation to one another. How much soever divided 
in regard to outward forms, and how much soever they 



CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 



5 



may, for the present, be wanting in personal esteem and 
love towards each other; still, being equally under the 
government of Christ, they are really fellow-citizens. 
Being children of the same Father, they are all 
brethren, God regards them in this light; and his judg- 
ment is truth. They are all children of God, and all 
brethren. Though they may sometimes overlook it, 
they are, in reality, members of the same body, and as 
such have a common interest. And whatever promotes 
the spiritual good of one, really promotes the good of 
all. And whatever injures any one member of that 
spiritual body, really injures all. 

This being the case, the duty of Christians towards 
one another is obvious. They ought to feel and act in 
conformity with the truth. Being really members of 
one body, they ought to exercise mutual sympathy, care 
and kindness. Being truly brethren, children of the 
same Father, they ought to have sincere mutual affection, 
to *Move as brethren," and to take pleasure in each 
other's welfare. If any member of Christ's spiritual 
body is weak, or diseased, or defiled, it is no reason why 
the other members should not acknowledge it as a 
fellow member ; though it is a reason why they should 
sympathize with it, and endeavour to strengthen, or heal, 
or cleanse it. Now if Christians, disciples of Jesus, 
living in the same place, or in different places, do, in 
open practice, or in heart, separate themselves from one 
another ; if in any way they injure one another : if, 
on account of any differences in opinion, or in outward 
forms, real Christians neglect to love one another, or to 
do good to one another ; they violate the obligations 
which arise from their unchangeable relations to each 



6 



LECTURE I. 



other, and to their common Head. They sin against 
trutli. They sin against God, who acknowledges and 
loves all believers, as his children, and commands 
them to love one another. They sin a:gainst Christ, 
who died for those Christians whoHi they disown or 
neglect, as much as for themselves, and who requires 
them, as they love Him, to love his disciples. They sin 
against their fellow Christians, to whom they owe un- 
ceasing affection and fidelity. They sin against them- 
selves ; as they owe it to their own souls to cherish the 
happy feeling of kindness towards their brethren ; and 
as their want of love is an injury to their fellow disciples, 
which will, sooner or later, return in bitterness to them- 
selves. 

I am far from intending to signify, that Christians in 
different places, or in the same place, are absolutely 
bound in duty to adopt the very same forms of ecclesias- 
tical order. The most cordial love and fellowship, and 
the most profitable intercourse, may exist among Chris* 
tians under different forms, as is evident in our own 
country, and elsewhere. But if differences in ecclesias- 
tical forms are joined with an exclusive spirit ; then the 
principle of love and fellowship, so often enjoined by our 
Saviour, is violated, and the Saviour himself, the Head of 
the church, is offended and dishonored. And as differ- 
ences in external forms are so often made the occasion 
of breaking the bonds of affection among Christians; 
it is certainly desirable that such differences should be 
avoided, and that the same modes of ecclesiastical order 
should, as far as possible, prevail. Christians should ear- 
nestly endeavour to attain to a substantial uniformity. 
But if they fail of reaching this, they should be sure not 



CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 



7 



to fail in the spirit of brotherly love, and not to violate 
the principle of a free and cordial fellowship, as mem- 
hers of Christ'' s spiritual kingdom. 

In these remarks on Christian fellowship, I have in 
mind an important distinction between good men, con- 
sidered as such, and any opinions or practices of theirs 
which we deem to be erroneous. It is evident from the 
Scriptures and from common observation, that good men 
may adopt view^s w^hich are more or less incorrect re- 
specting the doctrines of religion, and more particularly 
respecting the external modes of worship and church 
government. Now it is very clear that we can consist- 
ently acknowledge them to be Christians, and heartily 
receive them and hold communion with them as Chris- 
tians, while w^e bear a humble and affectionate, but faith- 
ful testimony against what we believe to be erroneous. 
In this we only conform to the truth. For the truth is, 
as we understand it, that they are good men, called of 
God, born of his Spirit, and heirs of his kingdom. We 
love them and treat them as such. We believe Christ 
receives them, and we harmonize with him, receiving 
those whom he receives, having communion with Christ 
in the very act of having communion with his followers. 
This is acting according to the truth. On the other 
hand, it is a truth, as we understand it, that these fellow 
Christians are chargeable with some mistakes, — mis- 
takes, however, which may exist consistently with their 
possessing the character of true Christians. Still they are 
real mistakes, and mistakes in the view of Christ their 
Saviour. But does he approve these mistakes, or pass 
by them as of no consequence, because they are found in 
his disciples? By no means. Neither should we. He 



8 



LECTURE I. 



bears testimony against their errors by his word and 
providence, and by the teaching of his Spirit, either in 
their minds, or in the minds of others, or in both. And 
his testimony will sooner or later be effectual. In like 
manner we also, in a way suitable to our condition, should 
labor to point out the mistakes which prevail in the 
church, and to expose their hurtful nature and tendency, 
having a desire that our fellow Christians should be rid 
of their mistakes, in proportion as we are sincere and ar- 
dent in our love. This too is acting according to the 
truth. In both parts of the conduct here described, we 
are perfectly consistent. Nor can we be consistent in 
any other way. If we refuse to acknowledge good men, 
and to receive them to our fellowship, we act against 
Him who is our perfect pattern, and who loves and re- 
ceives all believers. And it is equally evident, that if 
we countenance the mistakes which we find among good 
men, or neglect any proper efforts to correct them, we 
act against Him who came, as a Prophet, to bear wit- 
ness to the truth. 

My second remark is, that some definite form of eccle- 
siastical government is essential to the order and prosper- 
ity of the church. The affairs of the church must be 
administered, and must be administered in some partic- 
ular mode. Of this every one will be satisfied. Gov- 
ernment must evidently have some form, or it does not 
exist. And no arguments are necessary to show, that 
the more definite and intelligible its form, the more easi- 
ly and effectually may it be executed. Ecclesiastical 
government, in order to its just administration, requires, 
as really as civil government, specific principles and rules. 



CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 



9 



And to prevent confusion and strife, and to promote the 
highest degree of prosperity, the rules of government in 
the church should be comparatively few in number, defi- 
nite and simple, well understood, firmly established, and 
strictly observed. In ecclesiastical as in civil society, it 
is important that we have the wisest and best govern- 
ment. But it is still more important that we have some 
government. 

My third remark is, that in settling the form of church 
government, and the specific rules according to which it 
is to be administered, we must carefully observe all the 
principles which are made known in the Christian Scrips 
tures. 

Christ and his Apostles must be regarded as infallible 
teachers. Whatever doctrine they taught, w^e receive as 
divine truth, and as binding upon our faith. Whatever 
moral precept they gave, we receive as of divine author- 
ity, and as binding upon our practice. And why are 
we not equally bound to observe whatever they taught 
relating to the subject now under consideration? If we 
find any direction or act of Christ, or his Apostles, re- 
specting the government of the church; why are we not 
to regard it as expressing his mind, or the mind of his 
inspired Apostles, as to the proper manner of administer- 
ing our ecclesiastical affairs? And why is not an ex- 
pression of the divine will as obligatory on us relative to 
this subject, as to any other ? How can we feel ourselves 
at liberty to disregard the precepts or the example of our 
infallible guides in this case, more than in any other? 
If in regard to any of the particular forms of proceed- 
ing in Church Government^ we are left without any defi- 



10 



LECTURE I. 



nite instruction from the word of God ; we are so far at 
liberty, yea, we are under obligation, to make a proper 
use of our own judgment and discretion. In the case 
supposed, (and I think such cases really occur,) it is man- 
ifestly the will of God, that we should proceed accord- 
ing to our conviction of what is proper and expedient. 
But if we find general principles of ecclesiastical gov- 
ernment established in the word of God; those princi- 
ples are to govern us. They constitute what we may 
justly call the Constitution of Church Government, Par- 
ticular legislation may be called for. But whenever we 
undertake to legislate, we should keep our eye upon those 
permanent scripture principles, which form our Ecclesi' 
astical Constitution, and should remember, that any act 
of ours, contravening those principles, would be wholly 
unauthorized, and would be marked with a rashness and 
arrogance very displeasing to God. 

There is, in my view, only one thing, which can in 
the least modify the suggestions I have now made. It 
is admitted, that Christ and his Apostles were guided by 
infallible wisdom; but it may perhaps be said, that their 
wisdom was exercised with reference to the circumstan- 
ces of the times in which they lived, every direction and 
act of theirs having been certainly right in those circum- 
stances. But suppose some direction or act of those in- 
fallible guides related to some matter which was not of 
a moral or spiritual nature, and which, in itself, involved 
no permanent obligation; some outward form, the pro- 
priety and expediency of which depended on existing 
circumstances. The question is, whether, in other and 
very different circumstances, we are necessarily bound 
to conform exactly to such a direction, or such an exam- 



CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 



11 



pie. And this is my reply. If the direction or act of 
Christ or his Apostles was manifestly grounded upon the 
peculiar circumstances then existing, and if circumstan- 
ces now exist which are materially different, and so dif- 
ferent, that had they existed in the time of Christ or his 
Apostles, the direction or act referred to would unques- 
tionably have been different ; in such a case we should be 
at liberty to govern ourselves by other principles. As 
an illustration of this matter, take the judgment which 
the Apostle gave to the Christians at Corinth, that it 
was expedient for them, as far as practicable, to abstain 
from marriage. His judgment or advice was plainly 
grounded on the peculiar circumstances of the time, 
namely, the persecutions and sufferings to which Chris- 
tians were then exposed. The Apostle expressly refer- 
red to those circumstances, as the reason of his advice. 
And had it not been for those circumstances, no one can 
suppose such advice would have been given. Now when 
circumstances become essentially different, and the rea- 
sons on which the advice of the Apostle was grounded no 
longer exist ; it is manifest that we are not bound by 
that advice, but are at liberty to regulate our conduct by 
those other considerations, which are obvious to reason, 
and sanctioned by the word of God. 

The principle I have now laid before you is very clear, 
and applies to the present subject. Accordingly, if it 
shall appear, that any direction or act of Christ or his 
Apostles relative to Church Government, was evidently 
grounded on peculiar circumstances then existing, and 
not on general and immutable principles; and if, at the 
present time, those circumstances have ceased, and 
others, having a very different bearing on the subject, 



12 



LECTURE I. 



have come in their place; then, I apprehend, that di- 
rection or act of Christ or his Apostles is not to govern 
us. Indeed there may be imperious reasons why we 
should deviate from it. Circumstances may now exist, 
which, had they existed in the time of Christ or his 
Apostles, would have materially varied the direction or 
act referred to. Take one or two instances. Christ 
directed the man who was healed of the leprosy, to go 
and show himself to the priest, and offer the gift which 
Moses commanded ; and Paul, for special reasons exist- 
ing at that time, circumcised Timothy. No man can 
suppose that such a direction would have been given, or 
such an act performed, in circumstances like those 
w^hich now exist. And of course, no man can think 
that either the one or the other is to govern us. 

With the exception of such cases, — if such are found 
to exist, — we must regard any direction of Christ, or 
any direction or act of his Apostles, in regard to Church 
Government, as establishing a principle, which is obli- 
gatory on Christians at all times. What the real facts 
in the case are, and whether circumstances exist which 
are a proper ground for the exception above-mentioned, 
will be the subject of inquiry in the sequel. 

There are, in a general point of view, two forms of 
Church Government. ]. Prelacy, or government ad- 
ministered hy Prelates, or Bishops, 2. Government of 
a popular character. 

Prelacy is thus described by Hooker. A Bishop is 
a minister of God, unto whom with permanent continu- 
ance, there is given, not only power of administering the 
word and sacraments, which power other Presbyters 
have, but also a farther power to ordain ecclesiastical 



CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 



13 



persons, and a power of cTiiefty in government over 
Presbyters as well as laymen. So that this office as he 
is a Presbyter or Pastor, consisteth in those things 
which are common to him with other Pastors, as in 
ministering the word and sacraments ; — but those things 
incident to his office, which properly make him a Bish- 
op, cannot be common to him with other Pastors. Now 
— Bishops — are either at large, or else with restraint ; at 
large, when the subject of their government — is not 
tied to any certain place. Bishops with restraint are 
they, whose government over the church is contained 
within some definite, local compass beyond which their 
jurisdiction reacheth not." Episcopalians expressly 
claim for their system the sanction of Scripture and 
the Primitive Church, and maintain that from the 
Apostle's time there have been three orders of minis- 
ters in the Church of Christ, Bishops, Priests, and 
Deacons. 

The plan of my Lectures is simple. As in my de- 
liberate and settled opinion, I differ from the advocates 
of Prelacy, I shall state somewhat particularly the rea^ 
sons of this difference. In other words, I shall give you 
my chief objections against Prelacy. 

My first objection is, that the leading principles of 
Prelacy, as now understood and practised, are not au- 
thorized by the Christian Scriptures. 

The constitution of the Jewish priesthood has been 
considered by some, as requiring, or warranting, a simi- 
lar constitution in the Christian ministry. In the Jew- 
ish Priesthood there were three orders ; the High Priest, 
the Priests, and the Levites. But there is no intimation 
in the New Testament, that the Christian ministry was 



14 



LECTURE I. 



to be formed after the model of the former Priesthood. 
The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews takes pains to 
show that the Jewish Priesthood, which was a part of 
the Mosaic ritual, is done away ; that Jesus Christ, and 
he only, is the High Priest of Christians ; and that all 
who are set apart to the work of preaching the gospel 
are his ministers, or servants. There is a wide and ob- 
vious difference between the plan of the gospel ministry 
as laid down in the New Testament, and the plan of the 
Priesthood, as laid down in the Old Testament. And 
whatever may be pretended by some Episcopalians, they 
are far from making the Jewish Priesthood their model. 
The three orders among Episcopal ministers do not by 
any means correspond with the orders in the Jewish 
Priesthood. And any attempt to make them more near- 
ly correspond, would end in a still more visible and un- 
warrantable departure from the teachings of the New 
Testament. 

It is dear, that there is no foundation for Prelacy in 
any of the appointments or instructions of Christ, Take 
his appointment of the seventy disciples, who were sent 
forth to teach, to wwk miracles, and to call sinners to 
repent and believe. This arrangement was intended for 
important purposes at the commencement of the Chris- 
tian dispensation. But no one considers it as perma- 
nent. And if it had been designed to be permanent, it 
would be as far as possible from giving any countenance 
to the Episcopal scheme of three orders in the ministry. 

In the next place, Jesus chose twelve of his disciples 
to be his constant companions, to hear his instructions 
and witness his miracles, and thus to be trained up for 
the special work assigned them. He ordained twelve/' 



CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 



15 



says Mark, " that they should be with him, and that he 
might send them forth to preach, and to have power to 
heal sicknesses and to cast out devils.^' These disci- 
ples Jesus finally commissioned to go forth as his Apos- 
tles, and qualified them by the gift of the Holy Spirit to 
be witnesses of his miracles, and particularly of his re- 
surrection, and to be infallible teachers and guides. See 
Matt. 28 : 19, 20. Mark 16 : 15, 16. Acts 1 : 8. The 
work to which they were called was a special and mo- 
mentous work. It was the work of proclaiming the Gos- 
pel, founding the first churches, establishing the Chris- 
tian religion by preaching and by miracles, completing 
the volume of inspiration, and exercising, under Christ, 
a paramount authority in all the concerns of religion. 
Their commission and their endowments were adapted 
to the peculiar objects which were then to be accom- 
plished. Those peculiar objects having been accom- 
plished, the peculiarities of their office ceased. They 
were indeed religious teachers, ministers of the gospel ; 
and as such, they have successors. But they were teach- 
ers and ministers in a peculiar sense, and with peculiar 
qualifications, and peculiar authority. Considered in 
this light, they have no successors. Others have been 
sent forth as missionaries, as the word Apostles literally 
signifies. But those first Christian missionaries were 
distinguished above all others ; and the word Apostles, 
in a high and peculiar sense, has been appropriated to 
them. Now how does the fact that Christ appointed the 
Apostles to that peculiar work, and distinguished them 
by their qualifications from other ministers, prove that 
one set of ministers in after ages is to fill an office and 
possess qualifications above others ? All true ministers 



16 



LECTURE I. 



of Christ take the place of the Apostles considered sim" 
ply as gospel ministers. But where are the men at the 
present day, who inherit what was peculiar to the Aposto- 
lic character and office, or what distinguished the Apos- 
tles from other gospel ministers ? The welfare, and even 
the continuance of the Church requires that men, pro- 
perly qualified, should from time to time be set apart for 
the work of the ministry ; and that the ministry should 
be ?i permanent institution. In this sense there is a suc- 
cession, I do not say an uninterrupted, but a real suc- 
cession, from the Apostles to the present time. But it 
can no more be proved that subsequent ministers of the 
gospel share the peculiarities of the apostolic office, than 
that they share the peculiarities of the office of Moses or 
David. When a special and temporary work is to be 
accomplished, God gives men special qualifications, and 
a special, temporary commission. And when there is an 
ordinary work to be accomplished, a work which is to 
be continued from age to age ; God gives men qualifica- 
tions and invests them with an office suited to that ordi- 
nary work. As far as the work to be done By ordinary 
ministers of the gospel bears a resemblance to the work 
which was to be done by Moses, or David, or the twelve 
Apostles, so far, and no farther, can we suppose a resem- 
blance between them in regard to their respective offices 
and qualifications. So far as the peculiarities of the 
work assigned to Moses, or David, or the Apostles are 
concerned, a resemblance between them and ordinary 
ministers is precluded. In the arrangements of divine 
wisdom, means are always adapted to ends. 

But I must make one more remark. If it was indeed 
the design and the appointment of Christ, that there 



CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 17 

should be permanently a superior order in the gospel 
ministry, sharing in the peculiarities of the Apostolic of- 
jice^ it would certainly be reasonable to expect them to 
be possessed of the 'peculiar qualijications of the Apos- 
tles, and with qualifications above those of the inferior 
orders. But I know not that the superior order of min- 
isters in the Episcopal church pretend to be indued with 
any of the peculiar qualifications of the Apostles, or with 
qualifications above those which are found in the inferior 
orders. And I am sure that the work which Prelates 
take upon themselves to perform, is widely different from 
the peculiar work of the Apostles, — in some respects fall- 
ing short of it, and in other respects going beyond it. 
Whereas, if Prelacy were founded upon the superior of- 
fice of the Apostles, it ought to have substantially the 
same functions assigned to it, not varying from its stan- 
dard either in the way of deficiency or excess. But in 
reality, modern Prelates omit altogether the principal 
works which were peculiar to the Apostolic office, such 
as being witnesses of the life and death and resurrection 
of Christ, casting out devils, and doing other miracles, 
preaching and writing under the infallible guidance of 
the Holy Spirit ; while in other respects, particularly in 
assuming and exercising exclusively the right of ordina- 
tion, they transcend the powers exercised by the Apos- 
tles. But the consideration of this point comes more 
properly under another head. It is sufficient for my 
present purpose to show, that the existence of the supe- 
rior office and superior endowments of the Apostles, af- 
fords no ground for the existence of a superior order 
among gospel ministers in subsequent ages. In other 
words ; its having been the will of Christ that the Apos- 
2 



18 



LECTURE I. 



ties, for the special purposes then to be accomplished, 
should be invested with distinguished powers and hold a 
special and distinguished office, does not prove it to be 
his will that a particular order of ministers should exist 
in after ages, holding an office like that of the Apostles, 
and superior to that of ordinary ministers. Prelacy can- 
not be legitimately founded on the apostolic office. And 
how it comes to pass, that the advocates of Prelacy rest 
their cause so much on the superior authority belonging 
to the Apostles, it is difficult for me to understand. 
Their reasoning on this point appears to me to be whol- 
ly inconclusive, unless they can show that there is now 
the same necessity for the office of Prelates, as there was 
originally for the office of Apostles. 

It may be thought that the passage. Matt. 18 : 18, af- 
fords support to the high claims of Bishops. Christ said 
to his Apostles, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth, 
shall be bound in heaven ; and whatsoever ye shall loose 
on earth shall be loosed in heaven.'^ But what does this 
prove? The Apostles, as appointed and qualified by 
Christ, were invested with peculiar authority, and were 
enabled infallibly to exercise their authority in the busi- 
ness of Church discipline ; for this was the subject intro- 
duced in the three preceding verses. They were to have 
the gift of the Holy Spirit in such measures, that their 
instructions and their decisions should always be right, 
and their acts in the affair of binding and loosing, should 
be confirmed in heaven. But this proves nothing as to 
three orders in the ministry. And it is no proof of the 
superior authority of Bishops, unless it is made to appear 
that they possess the miraculous endowments which be- 
longed to the Apostles. In connection with this, take the 



CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 



19 



passage, John 20 : 22, 23, Jesus breathed on the Apos- 
tles, and said, receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose soever 
sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them ; and whose 
soever sins ye retain, they are retained." The authori- 
ty here intended, whatever it was, belonged to the Apos- 
tles y as indued with the Holy Ghost, But what proof 
does it afford of the authority of one order of ministers 
in the Episcopal church above that of other orders? 
Episcopalians themselves do not regard it in this light. 
For when the Bishop ordains Priests, he says to them, 
receive ye the Holy Ghost for the office and work of a 
Priest — whose sins thou dost forgive, they are forgiven ; 
and whose sins thou dost retain, they are retained." 
Now I suppose the Priest actually exercises the authori- 
ty thus committed to him by the Bishop. But how does 
he exercise it ? This appears from the declaration of 
absolution, or remission of sins, made by the Priest in 
the daily service. He says : Almighty God, the Fa- 
ther of our Lord Jesus Christ, hath given power and 

commandment to his ministers to declare and pronounce 
to his people, heing penitent , the remission of their sins. 
He pardoneth all those who truly repent, and unfeigned- 
ly believe his holy gospel. Wherefore let us beseech 
him to grant us true repentance, etc." This then I 
judge to be the meaning ; that when it is said to the 
Priest at his ordination, whose sins thou dost forgive, 
they are forgiven ;" he is authorized to declare, that God 
will forgive those who repent, and then to pray for re- 
pentance, etc. This is what the Priest does in the af- 
fair of absolution. It is evident that the Bishop is not 
at all distinguished above the Priests, in this affair of 
pronouncing absolution to the penitent. Whether done 



20 



LECTURE I, 



by the Bishop or Priest, it is merely declaring that mo- 
mentous doctrine of the gospel, that God will forgive the 
penitent. And the right to declare this truth, which be- 
longs alike to all gospel ministers, is no proof of the su- 
periority of one order above another. This right, or 
authority, was exercised by the Apostles, as inspired 
men, and therefore infallible. It is exercised by minis- 
ters at this day, not as inspired, — not as having received 
the Holy Ghost in the peculiar sense in which the Apos- 
tles received it, but as instructed by inspired men. 
Understood as a declaration of a gospel truth, followed 
by a prayer for repentance and pardon, the rite or prac- 
tice of absolution is very suitable, and occasions no mis- 
take. But the application to any uninspired men of the 
exact words which Christ addressed to his inspired Apos- 
tles, is, in my apprehension, quite unwarrantable. And 
I am glad to see in the ordination service, that a second 
form is provided, in which the wwds of Christ to his 
Apostles, John 20 : 22 are omitted. I suppose the first 
form or the second is used, as may suit the feelings of 
those concerned. 

Having considered that there is nothing in the ap- 
pointment of the Apostles to their peculiar office, which 
can give support to Prelacy ; I proceed to say, that Pre- 
lacy can receive no support from the instructions of Christ, 
If we could find that, in any of his teachings addressed 
publicly to the multitude, or privately to the Apostles, he 
made it known as his will, that there should in follow- 
ing ages be different ranks or orders among his minis- 
ters, there would be no place left for any question or 
hesitation on our part. But no intimation of this kind 
appears in any of the instructions of Christ related by 



CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 



21 



the Evangelists, or in anything which the inspired Apos- 
tles said or did after the ascension of Christ. If any of 
the Apostles had on any occasion signified, that, in their 
free intercourse with Christ, they had learnt it to be his 
intention, that there should be different orders in the 
ministry, either immediately or ultimately ; this would 
be a conclusive argument for Prelacy. But nothing like 
this can be found. 

I have recently read a sermon, which was delivered 
in Boston last December by the Right Reverend Wil- 
liam H. De Lancey, D. D. — a sermon in which the 
American Prelate gives a description of the character 
and reward of a faithful Bishop, which is worthy of 
the serious attention of every gospel minister. I now 
refer to it, because it contains a passage relative to 
the subject which has just been under consideration. 
The author undertakes to reply to the objection urged 
against Episcopacy, yro;?z the alleged uncertainty of the 
succession of Bishops, He says ; Our answer is, that 
the promise of perpetuity is from the lips of him, who 
has explicitly declared that His words shall not fail. 
' As my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.' 
* Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the 
world.' The same power, which has preserved the 
Scriptures true, through the successive copies and edi- 
tions, amidst the distractions of persecution, the perver- 
sities of ignorance, and the distortions of heresy and 
schism, so that, at this moment, the pure word of God 
can be ascertained, is fully adequate to the faithful pre- 
servation of the ministry." — It is not to human plan- 
ning, but to divine interposition, that we appeal. The 
promise is from the lips of Him whose power is adequate 



32 



LECTURE I. 



to the fulfilment." — Again he says ; " We may repose, 
with unshaken confidence, on the ability of the Promiser 
to fulfil his pledge.'' 

We heartily agree with the Prelate, that we " may re- 
pose, with unshaken confidence, on the ability of the 
Promiser to fulfil his pledge f that his power is ade- 
quate to the fulfilment of his promise," that is, " to the 
faithful preservation of the ministry f and also that the 
promise of Christ implies a succession of validly com- 
missioned ministers, to the end of the world." All this 
we hold as strongly as Episcopalians can do. With de- 
vout gratitude we receive the promise of our Redeemer, 
as a blessed encouragement to all his faithful ministers, 
whether in the Episcopal, Congregational, Presbyterian, 
or Baptist Church. True gospel ministers of different 
denominations have relied upon this gracious promise, 
and have experienced its fulfilment, and have been ani- 
mated and comforted by it in their labors. And I can- 
not doubt that ministers of other denominations have re- 
ceived the benefits of the promise as uniformly, and in 
as high a degree, as those of the Episcopal church. Nor 
can I admit that the benefits they have thus received, are 
stolen benefits, — benefits to which Christ has given them 
no title. As a matter of fact, he has bestowed the bene- 
fits of his presence as readily and as bountifully upon 
good ministers who are out of the Episcopal church, as 
upon those who are in it. The Lord Jesus is no respect- 
er of persons ; and in the fulfilment of his gracious pro- 
mise, he makes no difference among pious and faith- 
ful ministers, because they differ as to outward forms. 
If Episcopalians set up an exclusive claim to the pro- 
mise, that claim we know will not be sanctioned by their 



CHURCH GOVERNMENT. ' 23 

Lord and Master. We appeal from them to him. And 
we shall continue to go to him, and plead his promise, 
and beseech him to grant his presence, with all the bless- 
ings involved in it, not only to us, but to all his faithful 
ministers, whether they follow with us, or not, being fully 
persuaded, that whatever straitness or partiality there 
may be among poor, imperfect, erring men, there is none 
in HIM. Yes ; we shall always prize that promise of 
Christ, and shall apply it to ourselves, undeserving as 
we are. Sensible that we are utterly insufficient for the 
arduous duties of the ministry, we shall trust in his all- 
sufficient grace, praying him to be with us, according to 
his word. And why should any of those who differ from 
us in regard to ecclesiastical forms, attempt to exclude 
us from the benefits of Christ's precious promise? In 
his infinite fulness is there not enough for them, and for 
us ? With our present views, we shall continue to ap- 
propriate the promise to ourselves. And if we are ever 
convinced that it does not belong to us, we shall at once 
abandon the ministry, well knowing the truth of Christ's 
declaration ; " without me ye can do nothing." 

The author of the able and edifying sermon referred 
to considers the promise of Christ, Lo I am with you 
alway, even unto the end of the world," as a clear and 
certain proof of the perpetual succession of Bishops. 
Bishops^ that is, Prelatical Bishops, he regards as the 
successors of the Apostles. In a qualijied sense, Bish- 
ops, such as he describes in his sermon, are doubtless 
successors of the Apostles ; that is, they follow or come 
after the Apostles, and sustain an office in some respects 
like that of the Apostles. In a limited sense, they carry 
forward the work of the gospel ministry, which, in a 



24 



LECTURE I. 



higher sense, was committed to the Apostles at the com- 
mencement of the Christian dispensation. In this qual- 
ified sense, I hold that faithful Bishops are successors of 
the Apostles. But are they the only successors ] And 
does the promise of Christ belong exclusively to them ? 
If Bishops are the only successors of the Apostles, and if 
the promise of Christ belongs to none except Bishops ; 
then what becomes of the great body of gospel ministers 
in the Episcopal church and in other parts of the Chris- 
tian church, who are not Bishops 1 There are in the 
kingdom of Christ on earth many hundreds of gospel 
ministers to one Prelate. What, I ask, becomes of all 
these, left as they are without the presence of their Lord 
and Master? But if the promise relates to Gospel min- 
isters who are not Bishops ; then it may be fulfilled to- 
wards a succession of such ministers. And if so, how 
does it imply a succession of Bishops 1 And wherein 
lies the strength of the argument, by which the author 
attempts to prove the perpetual succession of Bishops^ 
that is. Prelates, from the promise of Christ ? 

It may be said, that the promise belongs primarily and 
by way of eminence to Bishops, and, in a lower sense, 
to the other order of ministers, ordained by Bishops. 
But how is this made to appear? There is nothing in 
the promise which indicates, that it was meant to be un- 
derstood in these different senses, as applied to different 
orders of ministers. The promise is very simple. Lo, 
I am with you alway, even to the end of the world." 
With whoni ? He does not say with one order of min- 
isters in a higher sense, and with another order in a low- 
er sense. He promised to be vl^ith the Apostles, and, by 
implication, with others after them, who should possess 



CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 25 

the character of gospel ministers, and be engaged in car- 
rying on, in a restricted sense, the great work which the 
Apostles began. The promise may indeed be fulfilled 
in different measures, as other promises are. Ministers 
who are distinguished for their piety and faithfulness, 
such as Leighton, Scott, Cecil, Henry Martyn, Baxter, 
Edwards, Brainerd, Payson, Andrew Fuller, and Davies, 
will undoubtedly enjoy the presence of Christ in a higher 
degree, than ministers less pious and faithful. And this 
is equally true in regard to ministers of different denom- 
inations. The Lord Jesus Christ is a Great King ; and 
in administering the affairs of his great kingdom, he does 
not proceed according to the narrow and exclusive no- 
tions which so often influence the minds of men. His 
thoughts and ways are exceedingly different from ours. 
Show me a gospel minister, of whatever name, who is 
filled with the Holy Ghost, and preaches the truth in love 
and fidelity ; and you show me one, to whom Christ will 
specially grant his promised presence. And surely the 
fulfilment of his promise manifests to whom he intended 
it should belong. For does he not act according to his 
intentions? I ask the pious author of the sermon before 
me, and other Episcopal ministers like him, whether it is 
not so. And they will permit me also to ask, whether 
they think their Blessed Lord is present with them, be- 
cause they are Episcopalians, — or, because they truly 
love him, and faithfully preach his gospel. If they say, 
though I presume they will not, — yet if any of them say, 
for the former reason, that is, because they are Episco- 
palians ; then I ask, for what reason Christ is so evident- 
ly and so graciously present with those ministers who 
are not Episcopalians ? But if they say, for the latter 



26 



LECTURE I. 



reason, that is, because they truly love him, and do the 
work of the ministry faithfully ; then they will doubtless 
admit, that other ministers, possessing the same character, 
may regard the promise as made to tliem,, and may ex- 
pect to realize its accomplishments. There are, besides 
Bishops, multitudes of gospel ministers, who have the 
heart and who do the work of true and faithful servants 
of Christ, and to whom he does in fact, and according 
to his intention, fulfil his precious promise. And if all 
that is implied in the promise has or may have its accom- 
plishment in a succession of those whom the omniscient 
Redeemer regards and treats as good and faithful minis- 
ters, though not Bishops ; then the question returns ; 
how does the promise prove a succession of Bishops, in 
distinction from other gospel ministers? The promise 
of Christ is a matter of great practical moment ; and I 
have chosen to treat it as such. And let me say again, 
so that it may not be forgotten ; — if being included with- 
in the reach of this gracious promise, and enjoying the 
benefits of its fulfilment, proves men to be successors of 
the Apostles ; then faithful Congregational, Presbyterian, 
and Baptist ministers are such successors, as truly as 
Bishops ; and the promise no more proves the continued 
existence of these, than of those. The fulfilment of the 
promise by the unchangeable Promiser, certainly shows 
how he intended his promise to be understood and ap- 
plied. Pious and faithful Bishops, such as are set before 
us in this sermon, are, I doubt not, in an important, 
though qualified sense, successors of the Apostles, to 
whom the promise belongs. Pious and faithful Presby- 
ters and Deacons in the Episcopal church, are also suc- 
cessors of the Apostles. Otherwise, how could they, 



CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 27 

equally with Bishops, be entitled to the promise 1 Thus 
far the advocates of high Church principles agree with 
us. And here they stop. But He who is Head over 
all things to the church, which he bought with his own 
blood, does not stop here. Thet/ limit the succession 
of true gospel ministers and the intent of Christ's prom- 
ise to Bishops, and those who are ordained by Bishops. 
Not so with him who made the promise, and who has all 
power in heaven and earth. He speaks and acts on 
larger principles. There is nothing, nothing at all, either 
in the language of the promise, or in its obvious mean- 
ing, or in the manner of its fulfilment, which restricts it 
to a succession of Bishops, or which proves the exis- 
tence of such a succession, any more than a succession 
of other gospel ministers. And if we would agree with 
our Blessed Lord, — if we would have our views and feel- 
ings correspond with his mind, as expressed in his word 
and providence ; we must guard not only against pride 
and bitterness, but against all narrowness and bigotry 
and party spirit, and must pray for enlargement of heart, 
and must rejoice in the wide extent of Christ's promise, 
and in the length and breadth of his love. 

It is in this way that I dispose of the passage quoted 
above, in which the author cites the promise of Christ, 
Matt. 28: 20, as a plain, conclusive argument, on which 
he confidently relies, to prove the perpetual succession of 
Bishops, I maintain, that neither the occasion, nor the 
language of the promise, nor its obvious meaning, nor 
the facts of its accomplishment, prove any such thing. 
Episcopalians may affirm, that it is a principle settled 
and certain, that Bishops are the only successors of the 
Apostles, and that they and those ordained by them are 



28 



LECTURE I. 



the only authorized and lawful ministers of Christ. 
What I have aimed to show in these remarks, is, that 
this principle cannot be proved from the promise of Christ. 
And I will only add, that I can no more admit, that 
Bishops and those who are ordained by them, are the 
only authorized and lawful ministers of Christ, than that 
hereditary kings and nobles are the only authorized and 
lawful rulers. 



LECTURE II. 



In the last Lecture, I stated it as my first objection 
against Prelacy, that it is not authorized hy the Chris- 
tian Scriptures, In discussing this point, I referred 
you particularly to the appointments and instructions of 
Christ, during his public ministry on earth. And I 
think it was made manifest, that there is nothing in his 
appointment of the seventy disciples, or of the twelve 
Apostles, or in the instructions he gave them, which af- 
fords the least support to Prelacy. 

Let us now inquire whether anything favorable to 
Prelacy can be found in the Acts of the Apostles ; — any- 
thing in the conduct of those, whom Christ appointed 
to preach his gospel and propagate his religion, which 
implied, that there should be three orders in the minis- 
try, and that one of these orders, namely. Bishops, should 
exercise authority, not only over the churches, but over 
two subordinate orders of ministers. Had the Apostles 
so understood the matter, they would doubtless have said 
or done something to show it. For they were commis- 
sioned and qualified to be witnesses and ministers of 
Christ, and, in his name, to teach the doctrines and laws 
of his kingdom, to establish churches, and to settle every- 
thing pertaining to their order and prosperity. And 
it was manifestly of great importance, that they should 
give a right direction to the great concerns of Christian- 
ity at the outset. What, I ask, is the practice of zealous 



30 



LECTURE II. 



Bishops of the present day, who believe themselves call- 
ed to fill an office similar to the Apostles '? Do they not 
on all occasions make the doctrine of Prelacy very pro- 
minent? And if they go, as the excellent Bishop of 
Calcutta and other Bishops have gone, to places where 
Christ has not been known, and engage in the great 
work of preaching the gospel and establishing churches ; 
do they not, among the very first things^ make known 
their principles of Church government ? And whenever 
they organize a church, do they not take good care to 
have those principles well understood, and to arrange 
everything according to the Episcopal plan ? Their pe- 
culiar belief naturally leads to such a practice. And 
if their belief is right, their practice is right ; and every 
one who honestly entertains that belief, will show it by 
his practice. But how was it with the Apostles, who 
were called of God to take the lead in establishing the 
kingdom of Christ among Jews and Gentiles, and who 
were responsible for giving, from the first, a right direc- 
tion and form to the churches ? If they had been led by 
the teaching of Christ, or of the Holy Spirit, to hold the 
ecclesiastical principles now held by Episcopalians ; 
would they not have been as honest and faithful as Epis- 
copalians now are ; — and would they not have done, in 
some good measure, as Episcopalians do ? Would they 
have been chargeable with that, which Episcopalians 
would now think an unpardonable neglect ? Look, then, 
for yourselves, into the history of the Acts of the Apos- 
tles, and carefully notice their particular proceedings 
and instructions, and see whether they did as Episco- 
palians do ; — see whether they did anything or taught 
anything, which shows, that they really meant to estab- 



CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 



31 



lish the Episcopal plan of Church government. Do 
you find anything in the account given of the choice of 
one to fill the place of Judas.? Do you find anything in 
the proceedings of the Apostles on the day of Pentecost ? 
Do you find anything in Chap, vi., where we have an 
account of the choice of seven men, commonly called 
Deacons, whom the Apostles set apart to their work by 
prayer and the imposition of hands ? What is there in 
this transaction, which is favorable to any part of the 
Episcopal plan of Church Polity ? These Deacons or 
servants of the church were chosen and set apart as al- 
mo?iers, that is, distributers of the charities of the church ; 
not as an order of gospel ministers or preachers, though 
some of them afterwards preached. But what resem- 
blance has this transaction to the proceeding of Bishops 
in ordaining those whom they call Deacons, and who 
constitute the lowest order of Episcopal ministers ? 

In Acts XV. we are informed of disputes and difiicul- 
ties which arose at Antioch respecting circumcision, and 
of the manner in which they were adjusted. It was a 
very important affair, and required the exercise of the 
highest wisdom and the highest authority. But by whom 
was it decided 1 Not by a Bishop ; not by an Apostle, 
nor by a number of Apostles ; but by the Apostles, and 
Elders, and the whole church'^ at Jerusalem. Was 
there anything in the mode of proceeding on that occa- 
sion, which was in any respect like that which is mark- 
ed out by the rules of the Episcopal church ? Was there 
any appearance of a Prelate, either at Antioch or at Je- 
rusalem ? In those large churches, was there, in this 
important and difficult case, any exercise of Prelatical 
authority, even by the Apostles ? But I shall have oc- 



82 



LECTURE II. 



casion to advert to this case again. All that my present 
object requires is to show, that what took place at An- 
tioch and Jerusalem, as here related, gives no support to 
the Episcopal plan of Church Polity. 

The next passage in the Acts, which relates to our 
subject is Chap. xx. The Apostle Paul gathered toge- 
ther the Elders or Presbyters of the church of Ephe- 
sus, that he might make his farewell address to them. 
I have only to say here, that there is nothing in his ad- 
dress to those Presbyters, or in what we learn of the 
state of things in the church at Ephesus, which can give 
any support to Prelacy. Let any one carefully read this 
chapter, and then say, whether there is any reason to 
think, that Paul, who had a direct agency in the first 
formation of that church, which doubtless comprised se- 
veral congregations, established different orders of min- 
isters 1 Is there anything which implies, that one of 
those, called Elders, was invested with authority over 
the others ? Taking everything into view, can we find 
the least evidence, that Paul did, what any Episcopal 
Bishop would now do in a similar case, that is, that, 
when he established the church or churches at Ephesus, 
he introduced Prelacy, and that, among the officers of 
the church whom he addressed, there was a Prelate, that 
is, a Bishop having authority over the Presbyters? But 
this case will be brought up again under another head. 

Let us now proceed to the Epistles, and inquire whe- 
ther the^ give any support to Episcopacy. 

Paul directed his Epistle to the Philippians thus : To 
all the saints at Philippi, with the Bishops and Deacons.''^ 
This, you will see in a moment, is no argument for Pre- 
lacy, as there is abundant evidence. Episcopalians them- 



CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 33 

selves being judges, that Bishop and Elder , or Presby- 
ter , were used by the Apostle, as synonymous terms. 
This appears also in his Epistle to Titus, Chap. i. Paul 
directs Titus to ordain Elders, adding a particular de- 
scription of the qualifications which they must possess, 
and showing clearly, before he has done, that by Bishop 
and Elder he means the same officer. In Ephes. 4:11, 
the Apostle says, that Christ " gave some Apostles, and 
some prophets, and some evangelists, and some pastors 
and teachers — for the work of the ministry, etc." But 
what is there in all this, which is favorable to the Epis- 
copal scheme ? Here, indeed, different orders of minis- 
ters are mentioned ; but they are Jive orders, not three ; 
and there is no mention at all of the orders established 
in the Episcopal church, either Bishops, Presbyters, or 
Deacons. Besides, the Apostle does not give the least 
intimation that one of these orders was set over the other 
orders. — It will be natural to take this passage in con- 
nection with 1 Cor. 12 : 28 ; God hath set some in 
the church, first Apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly 
teachers, after that miracles, gifts of healing, helps, go- 
vernments, diversities of tongues." Here are eight va- 
rieties. The first three are orders of ecclesiastical offi- 
cers ; but they have no correspondence with the three 
orders in the Episcopal church. The passage seems to 
be intended to mark different classes of duties, or diffe- 
rent departments of labor, rather than different orders or 
ranks of church officers. If you will excuse me, I will 
attempt some illustration of the Apostle's meaning, by 
what exists in this Seminary. Here the officers are all 
Professors, all gospel ministers, all Pastors and Teach- 
ers ; and all are of the same rank, and, in many respects, 
3 



34 



LECTURE II. 



attend to the same duties. Yet they fill different depart- 
ments, and with reference to those departments, they 
have different titles, marking the particular work assign- 
ed to them ; as, Professor of Sacred Literature, Profes- 
sor of the Hebrew Language and Literature, Professor 
of Christian Theology, Professor of Sacred Rhetoric, 
Professor of Ecclesiastical History. But instead of this 
they might, properly enough, be designated by five dis- 
tinct names, as the Greek Exegete, (if I may coin a 
word,) the Hebrew Exegete, the Theologian, the Rhe- 
torician, and the Historian ;— though it comes out, that 
they all, in a sort, teach exegesis, and Rhetoric, and 
History, and all, doubtless, are Theologians. 

It may be thought that the case of Matthias, and Bar- 
nabas, and some others, who were called Apostles, fur- 
nishes an argument in favor of Prelacy. As to Mat- 
thias ; he was appointed to fill a vacancy made by the 
apostasy of Judas, and so came to be one of the twelve 
Apostles, not a successor of the Apostles. And it is very 
easy to account for it that Barnabas and others should be 
called Apostles, on the ground of their being engaged as 
Missionaries in the same general work of preaching the 
gospel with the Apostles, and perhaps being indued in 
some measure with miraculous gifts ; though the chief pe- 
culiarities of the Apostolic office did not belong to them. 
At any rate, there is no evidence that they sustained an 
office like that of Prelates ; and of course, they cannot 
be referred to as affording any support to Prelacy. 

Episcopalians have argued in favor of Prelacy from 1 
Tim. 1 : 20. Paul, speaking of Hymeneus and Alexan- 
der, says : Whom I delivered unto Satan, that they 
may learn not to blaspheme." The sum of the argu- 



CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 



35 



ment is this : Paul, in the exercise of his authority as 
an Apostle, administered church discipline upon two no- 
torious offenders in the church at Ephesus. Bishops are 
the successors of the Apostles, and are in this respect in- 
vested with the same authority ; and therefore it belongs 
to them to administer church discipline. Let us examine 
this argument. 

The punishment of these apostates at Ephesus, like 
that of the incestuous person at Corinth, was, I think, 
preternatural. The language plainly denotes something 
more than simple excommunication. The power of the 
Apostle to inflict such punishment, was miraculous, and 
was as real though not so remarkable an instance of su- 
pernatural agency, as the punishment inflicted upon An- 
nanias and Sapphira. This miraculous power belonged 
preeminently to the Apostles. But surely the exercise 
of this power in some extraordinary cases was not in- 
tended to make void the precept of Christ, in Matt, xviii, 
as to the ordinary treatment of oflences. If the fact, that 
Paul, by his supernatural power, as an Apostle, inflicted 
such a punishment upon heinous offenders, proves any- 
thing relevant to the case in hand, it proves that modern 
Bishops are competent to do the same as the Apostle 
did. And if it proves this, it proves that Bishops may 
now write inspired Epistles, as the Apostles did. 

Episcopalians hold, that the church at Ephesus had a 
Bishop, that is, Timothy, as well as Presbyters ; and 
they hold that a Bishop is entrusted with the same pow- 
er of administering church discipline, as belonged to the 
Apostles. Timothy, then, the Bishop of Ephesus, had 
this power, and, no doubt, he knew that he had it. Why 



36 



LECTURE II. 



did he not exercise it ? And why did Paul, who had 
given it to the Bishop, interfere with it ? 

According to the reasoning of Episcopalians, the Apos- 
tle's exercising the power of church discipline in this 
case, is a proof that it did not belong to the church, or 
the Elders of the church. And does it not equally prove 
that it did not belong to the Bishop ? The argument 
then seems to stand thus : A Bisliop^ that is, Timothy^ 
is a successor of the Apostles^ and is im^ested with the 
sole power of administering discipline in the church. But 
the Apostle comes forward, and exercises that power him- 
self in the very diocese of Bishop Timothy ; — which 
shows very clearly, they say, that the power does not be- 
long either to the church, or to the Presbyters ; and, if 
the argument is straight, it shows equally, that it does 
not belong to the Bishop, 

The necessary limits of these Lectures forbid me to 
enlarge on this topic. But if we should extend our in- 
quiries farther, the result would be the same ; namely, 
that Prelacy, as now understood and practised, is not 
founded upon the Christian Scriptures. The ablest ad- 
vocates of Prelacy do not pretend that it is. This is my 
first objection to the Episcopal scheme of Ecclesiastical 
Polity. And it is in my mind, an objection of no small 
weight. For it is to be kept in mind that Christ was the 
Founder and Head of the church ; and it is surely rea- 
sonable to suppose that he would, in his own personal 
ministry, or by the ministry of those whom he appointed 
and qualified to act in his stead, do all which was neces- 
sary to the due establishment and the subsequent pros- 
perity of his kingdom on earth. It is certain that he and 
his inspired Apostles knew what was necessary. And 



CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 



37 



considering what their relation to the church was, and 
what was the work they undertook, and how deep an 
interest they felt in it, and how great their zeal and how 
constant their efforts for its full accomplishment ; we 
must regard the fact, that there is nothing in their re- 
corded instructions or acts which gives support to Pre- 
lacy, as a clear indication that they did not look upon 
Prelacy as properly belonging to the Christian establish- 
ment. Jesus Christ did not speak, and his Apostles did 
not speak, or write, or act, as Episcopalians would do in 
a similar case. And hence we conclude that they did 
not think djidifeel, as Episcopalians do. For men, cer- 
tainly honest men, are very apt to speak and act accord- 
ing to their opinions and feelings. So that, if the mat- 
ter ended here, and nothing more appeared than this ab- 
sence, this acknowledged absence of clear and explicit 
scripture evidence in favor of Prelacy ; I should feel 
myself constrained to pause, and to ask, how could this 
be, if Christ and the Apostles meant to establish Prelacy 
in the Church? 

I would here recommend to you a recent work on the 
Apostolic Church, hy Albert Barnes ; who examines the 
reasonings of Episcopalians more particularly than I can 
do, and who labors, I think very successfully, to show, 
that the Episcopal plan of church government can derive 
no support from the New Testament. 

But the matter does not rest here. For the New Tes- 
tament not only furnishes no evidence in favor of Prela- 
cy, but much evidence against it. This is my second 
objection to Prelacy. The first objection I think has 
weight ; but this has more weight. 

Second Objection. There is in the instructions of 



38 



LECTURE II. 



Christ, and in the instructions and acts of his Apostles, 
evidence, direct and indirect, against the Episcopal 
scheme, both as to church discipline, and as to different 
orders in the ministry. 

I begin with saying, that the New Testament fur- 
nishes evidence against the Episcopal scheme in re- 
gard to the treatment of personal offences and other diffi- 
culties in the church. On this subject Jesus Christ gave 
a particular direction to his disciples ; Matt. 18 : 15 — 17, 
" If thy brother trespass against thee, go and tell him 
his fault between thee and him alone. If he shall hear 
thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not 
heiaj:' thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in 
the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be 
established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell 
it to the church. But if he neglect to hear the church, 
let him be unto thee as a heathen man and a publican." 
This is a general direction from Christ himself for the 
treatment of offences. And why is it not binding upon 
his disciples in all ages ? It manifestly had respect to 
future time; for there was not as yet any regularly or- 
ganized Christian church, that could act, as here requi- 
red, in the business of discipline. The direction of 
Christ requires, that the church, that is, the assembly of 
believers, should ultimately hear, and judge, and act in 
regard to offences committed by its members. This 
mode of proceeding is palpably at variance with the sys- 
tem of Episcopacy, which places the government of the 
church, in this as well as in other respects, in the hands 
of the Bishop. The parish minister may have a subor- 
dinate agency in the discipline of offenders. But ulti- 
mately the whole power belongs to the Bishop. On this 



CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 



39 



plan, the proceeding from beginning to end must be ex- 
ceedingly different from that required by Christ. And 
to bring his direction to correspond with the Episcopal 
plan, you must make it stand thus : If thy brother tres- 
pass against thee, go and tell hhn his fault, etc. If he 
neglect to hear thee, take one or two others. — And if he 
neglect to hear them, tell it, — not to the church, hut to the 
minister of the Parish, and, at last, to the Bishop. But 
the minister is not the church, and the Bishop is not the 
church. 

See now what was the judgment of the Apostle Paul, 
who had so important an agency in establishing Chris- 
tian churches ; and what direction he gave, in regard to 
the treatment of offences. A gross crime was committed 
by a member of the church at Corinth ; and the Apostle, 
in conformity with the spirit of the above mentioned pre- 
cept of Christ, directed the church, the whole church to 
come together and act in excluding the offender. Now 
what is there in the doings of any Episcopal church, 
which agrees with this Apostolic direction? In what 
instance is the complaint against an offender brought 
before the church for decision ? In what instance are 
the members of the church gathered together to act in 
cutting off a man from their fellowship ? How is it that 
Episcopalians so easily overlook the direction of an Apos- 
tle, and the example of a primitive church acting accord- 
ing to his direction, and then make so much of the opin- 
ions and conduct of erring Christians in after ages 1 If 
there were in the New Testament any precept or exam- 
ple as directly favourable to their scheme of Church dis- 
cipline, as the above precept and example are to ours ; 
they would be quick to discover it, and would at once 



40 



LECTURE II, 



fix upon it as an unfailing support to their principles. 
Should it be said by any one, that the Apostle in this 
case plainly asserted and exercised his authority over 
the Corinthian Church, and was thus an example for 
Prelates; my reply would be; — let Prelates then take 
care to copy the Apostle's example, and exercise author- 
ity just as he did, not by a separate, final act of their 
own, but by referring the business to the churches, and 
directing the members to come together to deliberate 
and act in excommunicating offenders. 

The proceedings recorded in Acts 15th, are evidently 
contrary to the Episcopal mode of Church government. 
I have already referred to these proceedings as furnish- 
ing no evidence in favor of Prelacy. I now refer to them, 
as furnishing evidence against Prelacy. For there was 
one Apostle, that is Paul, at Antioch, and there were 
Apostles at Jerusalem. And we may be quite sure that 
these Apostles, qualified as they were for their office, 
adopted a plan of proceeding, which was agreeable to 
the mind of Christ, and which may be regarded as a 
pattern for ministers and churches in subsequent ages. 
A dispute and contention arose among the disciples at 
Antioch respecting circumcision. They finally sent 
Paul and Barnabas and certain others to the Apostles 
and Elders at Jerusalem to attend to this matter. And 
when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received 
of the church, and of the Apostles and Elders." After 
Paul and Barnabas had stated the case to all the mul- 
titude^^ assembled on the occasion, that is, to the Apos- 
tles and Elders and the church, and after Peter and James 
had spoken on the question before them, their delibera- 
tions were brought to a happy close ; and it pleased the 



CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 



41 



Apostles and Elders, with the wliole church, to send cho- 
sen men of their own company to Antioch to communi- 
cate the result of their deliberations to the church at 
Antioch, that result being contained in a letter with this 
introduction : " The Apostles and Elders and brethren 
send greeting to the brethren at Antioch, etc." 

In this remarkable case, we see how the concerns of 
the church were managed and how disputes and diffi- 
culties were adjusted in the Apostle's days. The Apos- 
tles, though divinely commissioned and divinely inspired, 
did not decide the question before them by their own 
authority, but chose to act in connection with the Elders, 
or Presbyters, and the whole Church^ And in the 
final result, the Elders and the whole church had a joint 
agency with the Apostles. 

Here the question instantly arises ; what is there in 
any doings of the Episcopal church, which agrees at all 
with these transactions ? Where do you find it recorded, 
that in removing difficulties and settling great ecclesias- 
tical principles, the brethren of the Episcopal church in 
anyplace, even in this Republic, came together and join- 
ed with the Bishops and Presbyters in deliberating yrce/y, 
without being controlled by the will of any one, on a 
question respecting the interests of religion, and in adopt- 
ing the final decision ? Place a Bishop, if you will, on 
a level with the Apostles; but why place him above 
them ? Why should he, in such transactions, set aside 
the brethren of the church, and the Elders too, and as- 
sert his supremacy over them, and act the part of Dicta- 
tor, when the Apostles themselves, though invested with 
such high authority, did not proceed thus, but acted in 
concert with the Elders and the whole church ? Say, if 



42 



LECTURE II. 



you will, that the Apostles, though they had a rigid to 
decide and act on the ground of their own plenary au- 
thority, intended by such a proceeding, to set an example 
of singular condescension and modesty. Why then 
do not Bishops, who consider themselves successors of 
the Apostles, copy so charming an example ? The plain 
truth is, that there is a radical fault in the system of Pre- 
lacy. That system does not agree with the teaching of 
the New Testament. When it was introduced, it was, 
as we shall see, an innovation upon the ecclesiastical 
order established and acted upon by the Apostles. It 
was an innovation made by uninspired men, — good men, 
I admit, but as liable to error, as good men are now. 
The system held by Episcopalians, either as to the three 
orders of ministers, or the mode of conducting the affairs 
of the church, cannot be reconciled with the pattern 
showed us in the New Testament. So I think. It is 
not, — as Episcopalians have often acknowledged. — de- 
rived from the word of God. In the respects above men- 
tioned, it is a continuation, for substance, of the system 
which existed so long in the Papal church, and the sys- 
tem of the Papal church grew out of the innovations and 
corruptions which were gradually introduced by the 
Christian fathers in ages long after the time of the Apos- 
tles. Henry the Eighth did indeed, from personal con- 
siderations, renounce the supremacy of the Pope of 
Rome. But so far as the church of England was con- 
cerned, he took the place of the Pope, that is, he be- 
came the Head of the church. And he with his Bish- 
ops retained for their church, as any one may see, the 
essential features of the previous hierarchy, both as to 
ceremonies, and the orders of the Priesthood. 



CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 



43 



We have now touched upon the prominent passages 
in the New Testament, which relate directly to the man- 
ner of treating offences and removing disputes and dis- 
sensions occurring in the church. And I know not how 
to suppress the thoughts, which a review of these pas- 
sages suggests to my mind. And if I repeat what I have 
hinted at before, the repetition is intended for the pur- 
pose of deepening the impression. 

Suppose, then, that the advocates of the Episcopal 
scheme of Ecclesiastical government at this day, could 
find in the Gospel of Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John, that 
Jesus, who had a perfect knowledge of things to come, 
directed his followers, in case of an offence, to deal once 
and again with the offender in private, and if no satis- 
faction should be given for the offence, to tell it to the 
Bishop, — not to the church, but to the Bishop ; would 
they pass over such a passage, as they do Matt. 18: 15 — 
17 ? And suppose that, in conformity with such a direc- 
tion from Christ, they should find in one of Paul's Epis- 
tles, that he gave an express command to a Bishop^ — not 
to the members of the church assembled together, but to 
the Bishop, with the power of the Lord Jesus'' to cut 
off an offender ; would they pass over such a direction, 
as they do the direction of Paul to the members of the 
church at Corinth respecting the treatment of the inces- 
tuous person ? And if they could find it related in the 
history of the Acts of the Apostles, that an important 
and difficult question respecting the interests of the 
church was determined and settled, not by Apostles and 
Elders and all the church acting together, — but by a 
Bishop, or several Bishops united, — could Episcopalians 



44 



LE CTURE II . 



find any thing like this ; would they pass over it, as they 
do the case mentioned in Acts 15th ? 

It was suggested in the previous Lecture, that any 
direction of Christ or any direction or act of his Apos- 
tles respecting the transaction of business in the church, 
is binding upon us, unless it appears, that such direction 
or act was grounded upon peculiar circumstances then 
existing, and that circumstances, so essentially different, 
now exist, that we are evidently at liberty, and even re- 
quired, to govern ourselves by other considerations. 
Let us inquire then, whether there is anything like this 
in the case now before us. Have circumstances so 
changed since the commencement of the Christian dis- 
pensation, that we are required, or left at liberty, to de- 
viate from a direction of Christ, or a direction or exam- 
ple of an Apostle respecting the treatment of offences, 
or the conduct of other church affairs? Have we any 
sufficient reason for such deviations ? 

Now if there is in New England and in other parts of 
our country, a substantial reason at the present time, 
why the members of the church should be excluded from 
any agency in matters of discipline, and why the govern- 
ment of the church should be ultimately in the hands of 
the Bishop^ the reason must, I think, consist in one or 
more of the following facts ; namely ; that the interests 
of the church are essentially different from what they 
originally were, and consequently require a different 
management; or, secondly, that the members of the 
church are less competent than they originally were, to 
have an agency in the concerns of the church ; or, third- 
ly, that the Bishop is possessed of higher qualifications, 
and is of course, more competent to the government of 



CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 



45 



the church, than he was at the beginning of the Chris- 
tion dispensation ; or, fourthly, that the state of civil 
society is here so different, as to require a change from 
the popular forms of church government to Prelacy. — Let 
us consider each of these. 

First. Are the essential, internal interests of the 
church different from what they were when Christianity 
was first established in the world ? If any one affirms 
that this is the case, it will be incumbent on him to show 
in what respect those interests are different, and why 
they require a different management. Till this is done, 
we cannot admit that the change referred to in the plan 
of church government, is either necessary, or lawful. 

Secondly. Is there reason to think, that the members 
of our churches generally are less competent to have a 
share in ecclesiastical government, than the members of 
the first churches at Jerusalem and at Corinth were? 
Are not Christians here as well educated, as much ac- 
customed to think correctly, and as well prepared for 
important duties, as those were, who had just emerged 
from Judaism or Paganism, and who, even while they 
enjoyed the benefits of Apostolic instruction, so often 
showed their ignorance, and their proneness to error ? 

Thirdly. Will any one maintain, that a Bishop at this 
day is possessed of higher qualifications, and is more 
competent to the government of the church, than a Bish- 
op was in the church at Jerusalem, at Corinth, or at An- 
tioch ? for assuredly, as they had churches there, they 
must have had Bishops. Is a Bishop at the present time, 
I ask, more competent to the sole exercise of church 
government, than a Bishop was then ; and is he more 
competent, than an inspired Apostle was ? for you will 



46 



LECTURE I. 



keep in mind, that there were Apostles there, but that no 
Apostle undertook to decide upon the questions which 
came up at Jerusalem, except in concert with the Pres- 
byters and the brethren of the church. And as to the 
case of discipline at Corinth, Paul did not go there to 
manage it ; nor did he direct the Bishop to manage it ; 
— (and doubtless the Corinthian church had a Bishop;) 
but he directed the assembled church to do it. The ques- 
tion is, whether a Bishop now is better qualified to go- 
vern, than a primitive Bishop, or an inspired Apostle 
was? 

Finally. Is the state of civil society in our country 
such, as to require a change from a popular form of 
church government to Prelacy ? The question carries 
its own answer with it. If ecclesiastical government is 
to conform to civil government ; then, as civil govern- 
ment, in the time of the Apostles, was in the hands of a 
Monarch, ecclesiastical government should certainly have 
been in the hands of a Prelate, And as we live under 
a Republican government, (if this circumstance is to 
have influence,) it would seem to follow, that if Prelacy 
had been, (though it was not) — yet even if it had been 
the original plan, it should now be changed to a popular 
shape, to conform to our Republican institutions. But 
what reason, I pray, can you find in our Republican 
principles for a change from the original popular form 
of church government to an ecclesiastical monarchy, or 
aristocracy ? 

We come therefore to the conclusion, that there has 
been no such change of circumstances, as to justify a 
deviation from the plan of church discipline, which was 
marked out by the instructions of Christ, and by the in- 



CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 



47 



structions and example of the Apostles ; and, of course, 
that we are as much bound to conform to that plan, as 
primitive Christians were. My objection then against 
Prelacy remains ; that, in respect to church discipline, 
the New Testament not only fails of giving it any sup- 
port, but furnishes clear evidence against it. 

I now proceed to the other branch of my second ob- 
jection, namely, that the New Testament contains evi- 
dence, both direct and indirect, against the Episcopal 
scheme, in regard to different orders in the ministry^ and 
the authority of Bishops. 

Now it seems to me, that everything in the New Tes- 
tament relative to the Christian ministry, is different from 
what it would have been, if Christ and his Apostles had 
intended to establish different orders, and to give one 
order authority over the others. The seventy disciples 
that Jesus sent forth were all of one order. So also were 
the twelve Apostles. And Jesus took special pains to 
guard them against supposing, that one of them was to 
be superior in rank to the others. Be not called mas- 
ters," he said; " for one is your master, even Christ; 
and all ye are brethren." And when some of them, un- 
der the influence of a fond mother, indulged aspiring 
thoughts, and made the request, that they might be dis- 
tinguished above their brethren ; he rebuked them and 
said ; Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of." 
He then proceeded to inform them, that it should not be 
among them as it was among the nations of the earth, 
where some are appointed to exercise lordship over oth- 
ers ; that they should not aim at power and authority, 
but should look upon each other as brethren and equals. 
If the Saviour and Head of the church had intended to 



48 



LECTURE II. 



establish Prelacy, we should think that would have been 
a very favorable opportunity for him to allude to the sub- 
ject, and to signify, that although no distinction of rank 
should be made among the twelve Apostles, who were to 
be his first ministers, it would be otherwise in subsequent 
times, and that the welfare of the church would ultimate- 
ly require, that there should be three orders of ministers, 
the second being superior to the third, and the first hav- 
ing authority over both. Whereas all that he said on 
the occasion, was decidedly against the idea of any such 
distinction. 

Let us now proceed to the Acts of the Apostles, and 
consider the passages, which most directly relate to the 
subject before us. The first which occurs is Acts 13 : 
1 — 3. In the church at Antioch, which doubtless com- 
prised several congregations, there were certain prophets 
and teachers, as Barnabas, and Simeon, and Lucius, and 
Manaen, and Saul. " As they ministered to the Lord, 
and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, separate me Barnabas 
and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them. 
And when they had fasted and prayed and laid their 
hands on them, they sent them away." The proceeding 
does not correspond at all with the Episcopal scheme. 
There was no one among them, so far as we can judge, 
who was superior in ofiice to the others, and to whom 
the business was committed of separating Barnabas and 
Saul by prayer and the laying on of hands, and then 
sending them forth to the work of preaching the gospel 
among the heathen. No one of the twelve Apostles was 
there. Saul was indeed called to be an Apostle in the 
highest sense. But it was he and Barnabas, that were 
to be set apart for the special work whereunto they were 



CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 



49 



called. But was there any superior church officer, any 
Prelate there? Or did the Holy Ghost direct them to 
send for an Apostle, or for one whom the Apostles had 
ordained as a Prelate, to come and set apart Barnabas 
and Saul? Now I do not say that this was an ordina- 
tion in the sense in which we commonly use the word. 
But I ask, whether any transaction like this takes place, 
or can take place, among modern Episcopalians ; wheth- 
er it would be consistent with their principles, that two 
of their young men should be solemnly set apart for the 
work of the gospel ministry among the heathen, by the 
laying on of the hands of those who are not Bishops. 
And I ask, whether the Episcopal scheme and the Epis- 
copal practice are not, in this matter, at variance with 
the proceedings of the first Christian churches. 

It cannot be alleged, that these proceedings took place 
before there had been time to organize the churches, 
and to develope the real and ultimate design of Christ in 
regard to the ministerial office. For the Apostles had 
been preaching about twelve years after the death of 
Christ, had established many churches, and had unques- 
tionably given the necessary instruction relative to the 
permanent institutions of Christianity. The affairs of 
the church had, for many years, been receiving a proper 
direction and form under the special guidance of the 
Holy Spirit. And from the proceedings at Antioch in 
setting apart men to the gospel ministry among the hea- 
then, w^e learn what that form was. 

The next passage to which I refer, as containing evi- 
dence against Prelacy, is Acts xx. Paul gathered the 
Elders or Presbyters of the church at Ephesus, and said 
to them : Take heed to the flock over which the Holy 
4 



50 



LECTURE II. 



Ghost hath made you STnaKOTTOvg, Bishops." The Pm- 
hyters were Bishops. This is clear. The two words 
were used interchangeably. They were applied to the 
same men, and denoted the same office. Now Paul had 
been at Ephesus no less than three years, and had done 
what he deemed necessary for the establishment of gos* 
pel order. The church at Ephesus was a large church, 
consisting doubtless of several congregations, and having 
several Bishops, or Presbyters, one at least, we may sup- 
pose, to each congregation ; all, however, forming one 
church. Now, why had not Paul, during his long stay 
there, and in the first organization of the church, in 
which it was so important that everything should be done 
right, — why had he not appointed a Prelate for Ephesus, 
that is, a Bishop who should have authority over the other 
Bishops, or Presbyters, and a general supervision over the 
whole church ? This certainly would have been done by 
any one who entertained the views of our Prelates. Why 
had not Paul done it 1 Or if he had done it, why does 
it not appear ? Why is it not said, he sent and called 
the Bishop and the Presbyters 7 And why is it not said 
that he addressed himself to them distinctly, as any Bish- 
op would now do, charging the Prelate to maintain a 
faithful care and government over the other orders of 
ministers, and charging the Presbyters to be faithful in 
their respective congregations, to love as brethren, and 
to show due honor and submission to their Bishop 1 If 
Paul had agreed with Episcopalians in principle, would 
he not have agreed with them in practice ? And if Epis- 
copalians differ from the Apostle in practice, is it not 
quite probable that they differ from him in principle too? 
I argue against the doctrine of Prelacy from Paul's 



CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 



51 



Epistle to Titus, Chap. 1 : 5, 7. He directed Titus to 
ordain Presbyters in every city, and specified the quali- 
fications they should possess ; and then suggests to Titus 
the reason for such care as to the character of a Presby- 
ter. " For a Bishop must be blameless, etc." The 
whole passage makes it certain that the Apostle meant 
the same ofiicer by Presbyter and by Bishop. Titus 
himself was a Bishop, — ^just such a Bishop as he was to 
ordain in every city. A Presbyter was a Bishop. 

The address of Paul's Epistle to the Philippians im- 
plies something, which seems to me unfavorable to Pre- 
lacy. To all the saints at Philippi, with the Bishops 
and Deacons." The Bishops were just such church of- 
ficers, as those at Ephesus, who were first called Presby- 
ters, and then Bishops. You observe, they were Bish- 
ojps, — not a Bishop, but Bishops, — and Bishops of the 
same church, or collection of churches, or, if you please, 
Bishops of the same diocese. It would suit the views 
of Episcopalians far better, had the Apostle directed his 
Epistle thus: To all the saints at Philippi, with the 
Bishop, Presbyters and Deacons.''^ 

As to Deacons ; all we have to do is to find what in- 
formation the New Testament gives. They were ser- 
vants, or ministers, as the word signifies. It is applied 
to Phebe, Rom. 16 : 1, who in a more private way minis- 
tered to the saints, particularly, as we suppose, to poor and 
sick females. It is often applied to the Apostles. See 
1 Cor. 3 : 5. 2 Cor. 3:6. 6:4. 11 : 23. It is applied to 
Timothy, 1 Thess. 3:2; to Tychicus, Ephes. 6 : 21, and 
Coloss. 1 : 7, and to Epaphras, Coloss. 1 : 7. Thus it ap- 
pears, that the Apostles and other ministers were familiar- 
ly called /liayiovoi) Deacons, i. e. servants, servants of God, 



52 



LECTURE II. 



or of Christ. This is the general use of the word in the 
New Testament. And why may we not suppose it to be 
used in this general sense in Philip. 1:1. "To the saints 
at Philippi, with the Bishops and Deacons/'— or, in plain 
English, the overseers and servants ; i. e. to those who are 
both overseers and servants of the church. I acknowledge 
it may be used here as in 1 Tim. iii, where Bishops and 
Deacons are mentioned and described distinctly, imply- 
ing that they were employed, as servants of Christ, in 
different departments of labor. But if this is the true 
construction, still what evidence is there, that the Dea- 
cons, as an inferior order of ministers, were subject to 
the Bishops? What evidence is there, that the Bishops 
had authority over tliem^ any more than over one ano- 
ther 1 Certainly this cannot be inferred from the name. 
They were indeed called deacons^ or servants ; and so 
were Timothy and Tychicus and Epaphras; and so 
were the Apostles. And while the Deacons described 
by Paul, 1 Tim. iii, were ixxx\Y servants ; they were, like 
the others just mentioned, servants of God and of Christ, 
but are never said to be in subjection to a Bishop. But 
the probability is, that they were servants of the church 
in a more limited sense. 

I cite also 1 Tim. 4 : 14. " Neglect not the gift that 
is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the 
laying on of the hands of the Presbytery According 
to the best Philologists and critics. Presbytery denotes 
an assembly of Presbyters* These laid their hands on 
Timothy, and thus inducted him into his office. Pres- 
byterians and Congregationalists naturally adopt this lan- 
guage in giving an account of their ordinations. The 
passage is plainly in favor of ordination by a council of 



CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 



53 



Presbyters. But it is plainly against the High Church 
notion of ordination by a Prelate. And Episcopalians 
do not naturally describe their ordinations in this way. 
They refer you at once to 2 Tim. 1 : 6, where the Apos- 
tle speaks of the gift which was in Timothy by the lay- 
ing on of his hands. This passage unquestionably im- 
plies, that Paul joined with the Presbyters in ordaining 
Timothy by the imposition of hands. But there is not 
the least evidence from the two passages taken together, 
or from anything else, that the Presbyters had not as 
good a right to ordain by the laying on of hands, or as 
real a concern and influence in conferring the gift spo- 
ken of, as the Apostle had. The gift came indeed, from 
above ; and it was ascribed to human agency in only a 
secondary and very inferior sense. But it was ascribed 
to the Presbytery, as much as to Paul. And it was thus 
ascribed to the Presbytery by Paul himself, who certain- 
ly understood the matter. Episcopalians well know how 
remarkable the efforts of some of their writers have been, 
to make the account which Paul gives of this ordina- 
tion, 1 Tim. 4 : 14, correspond with their scheme. 

I shall refer to only one passage more ; 1 Pet. 4 : 1 — 3. 
Peter evidently agrees with Paul in regard to the subject 
under consideration. He here addresses Elders, or Pres- 
byters, calling himself an Elder, and then exhorts them 
to do the work of Bishops, eTzioxoTTowzsg ; clearly iden- 
tifying the office of Bishop and Elder. A Bishop, ac- 
cording to the New Testament use, was a minister and 
overseer of a church, not an overseer of Presbyters. 
Presbyters were Bishops, and Bishops were Presbyters. 
The language of the Apostles makes it exceedingly evi- 
dent, that they considered all ministers on a footing 



54 



LECTURE II. 



of equality. They mention no such officer, as a Prelate^ 
that is, a Bishop who had authority over a number of 
churches, and over other Bishops. 

This is acknowledged by many Episcopalians. Bish- 
op Burnet says : " I acknowledge the office of Bishop 
and Presbyter to be one and the same office." Dr. Rey- 
nolds, former Professor of Divinity in Oxford, says, that 
all who labored for hundreds of years before him taught, 
that all Pastors, whether entitled Bishops or Presbyters, 
have equal power and authority hy Godh word. And 
he declares this to be the common judgment of the Re- 
formed churches in Switzerland, Savoy, France, Ger- 
many, Hungary, Poland, the Netherlands, Scotland and 
England. And in a work called The Institution of the 
Christian man," expressly approved by Cranmer, Jewell, 
Willet, and Still ingfleet, together with the King and Par- 
liament, and the main body of the English clergy, is this 
declaration : In the New Testament there is no men- 
tion of any other degrees, but of Deacons or ministers, 
and of Presbyters or BisJiops.'' Burnet says : The 
King gave Bishops their power to ordain ministers, to 
exercise ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and to perform all 
other parts of the Episcopal function." Dr. Holland, 
King's Professor at Oxford, says : To affirm the office 
of Bishop to be different from that of Presbyter, and su- 
perior to it, is most false, — contrary to Scripture, to the 
Fathers, to the doctrine of the church of England, yea, 
to the very schoolmen themselves.'' Paley says : It 
cannot be proved that any form of church government 
was laid down in the Christian Scriptures, with a view 
of fixing a constitution for succeeding ages." And the 
Editors of the Christian Observer, 1804, say : Episco- 



CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 



55 



palians found not the merits of their cause upon any ex- 
press injunction or delineation of ecclesiastical govern- 
ment in the Scriptures ; for there is none." I shall add 
a recent testimony, which is of special interest. Bishop 
Onderdonk says, that in tlie New Testament, the name^ 
Bisliop, is given to the middle order, or Presbyters ; and 
that all which we read in the New Testament concerning 
Bishops, — is to he regarded as pertaining to that middle 
grade.'' " It was^ he says, after the Ai^ostolic age^ 
that the name Bishop was taken from the second order ^ 
and appropriated to the first J' 



LECTURE III. 



We have now seen how the matter lies. The New 
Testament, instead of supporting the Episcopal scheme, 
furnishes much evidence against it. And the main point 
which I wish to support, namely, that in the time of the 
Apostles, Bishops and Presbyters were the same officers, 
and that the New Testament does not establish three 
orders of ministers, one of which is to have authority 
over the others, is acknowledged by a multitude of Epis- 
copalians. 

According to the grand principle of Protestantism, 
our inquiries might end here. For who can doubt that 
the Holy Scriptures should be our guide on this subject, 
as well as on any other ? If the authorized founders and 
guides of the church saw proper, at the outset, to estab- 
lish any general principles of church government, why 
should not those principles govern us ? Now, if I mis- 
take not, it has been made evident to you, that Presby- 
ters and Bishops were originally officers of the same or- 
der ; and that the Apostles established the principle, that 
there should be an equality among gospel ministers in 
regard to rank; and that the members of the church 
should act in matters of discipline. The Apostles es- 
tablished this important principle, well knowing that 
they were authorized and required to determine the or- 
der of things in the christian ministry and church, and 



58 



LECTURE III. 



that they would be looked to as guides and examples in 
after ages. We ought, therefore, to regard and main- 
tain this, as a settled principle in the kingdom of Christ, 
unless there are circumstances which make it known to 
be his will, that there should be a variation. 

The great reason which is urged by Episcopalians to 
justify them in departing from the Scripture standard 
and in establishing Prelacy, is, that Prelacy was intro- 
duced at an early period in the Christian church. The 
practice of the Fathers is the argument most relied upon. 

I encounter this argument at once with several inqui- 
ries. 

First, I ask whether the early Fathers were, like the 
Apostles, guided by divine inspiration, and were thus 
qualified and authorized, as infallible guides, to make 
alterations in the order which the Apostles had estab- 
lished ? If they were, then we ought to submit to their 
decision as readily, as to the decision of the Apostles. 
But this no one maintains. I come then to my 

Second inquiry. Were the early Christian Fathers 
instructed hy the Apostles to make the alteration intend- 
ed, and, at the proper time, to introduce Prelacy? If 
there is any evidence of this, it must be found either in 
the instructions of the Apostles recorded in the Scrip- 
tures, or in the testimony of the early Fathers, that they 
received oral instructions from the Apostles in favor of 
such a change, though the instructions were not record- 
ed. 

Let us look at the first of these suppositions. In the 
Acts of the Apostles and in the Epistles, we have many 
and very particular instructions in regard both to the 
ministry and the church, — instructions which related not 



CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 



59 



only to their own times, but to times following. The 
Apostles had a clear prophetic view of the state of the 
church and of the world in subsequent ages, and fore- 
told many things that would come to pass after their de- 
cease. But does it appear that they gave any instruc- 
tions relative to the subject now under consideration ? 
Does it appear that they expressly said, or in any way 
intimated, that although, for the time being, they estab- 
lished only one order of ministers, called Presbyters or 
Bishops, they would have three orders established by 
their successors in following ages ? They directed that 
Presbyters should be ordained in every city. But did 
they signify that, after a while, circumstances would re- 
quire, that a Prelate should be ordained over Presbyters? 
Or if they did not give a positive direction that this 
should be done ; did they give discretionary power to 
their successors to do it, if they should judge expedient? 
The subject being of so great importance, it is certainly 
reasonable to think that something, like what I have 
suggested, would have been found in some part of the 
New Testament, if the mind of the Apostles had been 
in favor of the change alluded to. But where do you 
find it ? 

Look then at the other supposition. Do the early Fa- 
thers testify, that the Apostles gave oral instructions, 
which are not recorded, that there should be three or- 
ders in the ministry ? Do they in any way inform us, 
that there was an unwritten tradition handed down from 
the Apostles, in favor of Prelacy ? In the writings of 
the Christian Fathers there is, in my judgment, no evi- 
dence of this, but much of a contrary character. I can- 
not go into an examination of this subject in these Lec« 



60 



LECTURE III. 



tures. But others have done it. And if you will care- 
fully attend to the best books which have been written 
on both sides of the question, I am confident you will be 
satisfied of this. 

But early practice is appealed to. Prelacy^ it is said, 
generally prevailed very early ; and it can hardly he 
supposed that this would have been the case, without some 
warrant from the Apostles. 

In regard to this matter, let us take care to guard 
against confusion. It is evident, that Prelacy did at 
length obtain a general prevalence in the church. But 
it is specially important for us to inquire, when it thus 
prevailed. There is, I think, clear and abundant evi- 
dence, that during the age of the Apostles, and for more 
than fifty years after the Apostles, the churches were 
taught and governed by Presbyters ; that those who were 
called Bishops, were the same as Presbyters, and were 
Pastors and overseers of particular churches, and that 
there was no such officer as a Prelate, that is, a minister 
of superior r^nk, having authority over inferior orders of 
ministers ; and also that the members of the church act- 
ed in matters of discipline, according to the doctrine of 
Christ in Matt, xviii. But instead of undertaking to 
present this evidence before you in detail, which would 
lead me very far beyond my limits in these Lectures, I 
shall in the sequel state the positions which I think ten- 
able, and refer you to several works of a high charac- 
ter, in which the subject is handled very particularly and 
fully. 

Pedobaptists have sometimes been charged with an 
inconsistency, because they derive an argument in sup- 
port of Infant Baptism from Ecclesiastical History, and 



CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 



61 



yet deny the force of the same argument when urged in 
support of Prelacy. 

A statement of the case, just as it is, will, I think be 
sufficient to show, that the charge has no solid founda- 
tion. 

The chief historical argument in favor of Infant Bap- 
tism does not, in my view, arise from the fact, that the 
practice did at length generally prevail in the early ages ; 
but from the testimony of the Fathers, that it was re- 
ceived from the Apostles, In their practice, early Chris- 
tians did, in many things, deviate from the principles es- 
tablished by the Apostles. Hence it is evident, that the 
mere prevalence of any practice in the fourth, third, or 
second century, cannot be considered as proving its 
divine origin, or our obligation to adopt it. But it is 
admitted on all hands, that the Christian Fathers were 
good men, and that their testimony, as to matters of fact 
within their knowledge, can he relied upon. Now it was 
doubtless known among them, what the Apostolic insti- 
tutions were ; just as it is known among us, what were 
the original institutions of our Puritan forefathers in 
New England. Those who lived in the second, third 
and fourth centuries had such means of information, that 
they cannot be supposed to have fallen into any mistake. 
They were honest men, and cannot be supposed to have 
given a false testimony. And their testimony, in some 
instances their express and emphatic testimony is, not 
only that Infant Baptism was and had been universally 
practised among Christians, but that it was delivered to 
the churches hy the Apostles. It is chiefly from this 
testimony as to the origin of the practice, and not from 
the mere fact of its prevalence, that I would argue in 



62 



LE CTURE III. 



support of Infant Baptism. Now to make the cases 
parallel, you must have the testimony of Christian Fa- 
thers not only that Prelacy generally prevailed at such a 
time, but that it v^as handed down, as a divine ordi- 
nance, from the Apostles. You must, I say, have their 
testimony, that Prelacy had uniformly existed in the 
Christian church, and was received from the inspired 
Apostles as a permanant institution. If such a testi- 
mony could be produced, who would not acknowledge 
its weight 1 

But we have testimony to the contrary; that is, that 
Prelacy was not received from the Apostles. And to 
place the historical argument for Infant Baptism on the 
same footing with this, it must be shown that, while In- 
fant Baptism was universally practised in the days of 
Origen, Augustine, Pelagius, Tertullian, etc. the Fathers, 
at least some of them, declared, that it was not the prac- 
tice in the Christian church originally, but was, for 
special reasons, introduced afterwards. If any evidence 
like this could be adduced, we should be obliged to 
abandon the historical argument for Infant Baptism, and 
to acknowledge that, so far as the testimony of the Fa- 
thers goes, the Baptists are right. 

In opposition to Prelacy, we have just such testimony 
from the Fathers, as I have hinted at. Chrysostom says : 
The Presbyters were formerly called Bishops ; and the 
Bishops, Presbyters." Theodoret says : Those who 
were called Bishops evidently held the rank of Presby- 
ters." Irenaeus says the same of the Bishops who pre- 
ceded Victor in the church at Rome. But Jerome, who 
lived in the latter part of the fourth and the beginning 
of the fifth century, gives the most particular testimony. 



CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 



63 



Jerome, in the judgment of Erasmus, was without con- 
troversy by far the most learned and most eloquent of 
all the Christians, and the prince of Christian Divines;" 
and he was unquestionably familiar with the history 
of the Christian church from the beginning. His testi- 
mony is found in his Annotations on PauPs Epistle to 
Titus. In those Annotations he gives an account of the 
nature and origin of the office of a Bishop. And he 
says distinctly: A Presbyter is the same as a Bishop. 
And until there arose divisions in religion, churches 
were governed by a common council of Presbyters. But 
afterwards, it was everywhere decreed, that one person, 
elected from the Presbyters, should be placed over the 
others.'' Referring to Paul's Epistle to the Philippians, 
which was addressed to the saints with the Bishops 
and Deacons," he observes; '^Philippi is a single city 
of Macedonia ; and certainly there could not have been 
several like those who are now called Bishops, at one 
time in the same city. But as, at that time, they called 
the same Bishops, whom they styled Presbyters also, the 
Apostles spoke indifferently of Bishops as of Presbyters.'^ 
Jerome alludes to the fact, that Paul, having sent for the 
Presbyters of the single city of Ephesus, afterwards 
speaks of them as Bishops ; and he refers also to what 
Peter says : The Presbyters who are among you I 

exhort, who am also a Presbyter. Feed the flock of 

God — taking the oversight, ema'Aonovvr^g, exercising 
the office of a Bishop, etc,^^ These things," Jerome 
says, we have brought forward to show that, with the 
ancients, Presbyters were the same as Bishops. But in 
order that the roots of dissension might be plucked up, a 
usage gradually took place, that the ichole care should 



64 



LECTURE III. 



devolve upon one. Therefore, as the Presbyters know, 
that it is hy the custom of the church that they are sub- 
ject to him who is placed over them; so let Bishops 
know, that they are above Presbyters rather hy custom, 
than by the truth of our Lord's appointment." Jerome 
aims, in this way, to inculcate upon Bishops the duty 
of a meek and humble carriage. All this is in accor- 
dance with what Tertullian says on the same subject. 

Many of the advocates of Prelacy in the English 
church, as well as elsewhere, admit the identity of mia- 
xoTtog and TTQea^vreQog, in the primitive church, and 
that the distinction, which prevailed in the third and 
fourth centuries, was unknown for a long time after the 
Christian church was founded by the Apostles. 

You see how the matter stands, as to the abovemen- 
tioned charge of inconsistency. In regard to Infant 
Baptism, we have the testimony of the most respecta- 
ble Fathers that the institution was handed down from 
the Apostles, but not the least hint from any one of them, 
that it was not so. Bat in regard to Prelacy, we have 
no testimony from the Fathers, that it w^as appointed by 
the Apostles. On the contrary, we have their testimony 
that it was not known in the Apostolic age, or near it, 
but was introduced afterwards. 

I have said, that the me7^e practice of the ancient 
church cannot in any case be adduced, as conclusive 
evidence of a divine institution. But even in regard to 
ancient practice, there is an obvious difference between 
Infant Baptism and Prelacy. In the first place; there 
is evidence that Infant Baptism was practised univer- 
sally in the early churches ; while there is no such evi- 
dence, but the contrary, in regard to Prelacy. Secondly : 



CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 



65 



there is clear evidence, that Prelacy was gradually intro- 
duced long after the age of the Apostles, with a view to 
remedy existing evils. But there is no evidence that 
Infant Baptism was thus gradually introduced, or intro- 
duced at all, after the time of the Apostles. So that the 
argument, which is grounded upon Ancient practice 
merely, though by no means conclusive, is yet of more 
weight in favor of Infant Baptism, than of Prelacy. 

Here I am inclined to make a supposition similar to 
what I before made in regard to the Scripture argument, 
— -a supposition that the facts in the case were different 
from what they are. Suppose then, that respectable 
writers among the Christian Fathers had given a testi- 
mony to the apostolic origin of Prelacy, like that which 
they have given against it. Suppose Chrysostom, in- 
stead of saying, that Presbyters were formerly called 
Bishops, and Bishops Presbyters, had just said, that 
Bishops from the beginning were superior to Presbyters. 
And suppose, that Theodoret, instead of saying ; those 
who were called Bishops, evidently held the rank of 
Presbyters," had said, that Bishops evidently held a rank 
above Presbyters. And let me make one more supposi- 
tion. Suppose that such a man as Jerome, instead of 
saying what I have quoted from his Annotations, had 
just said, that a Presbyter was not the same as a Bishop, 
and that, from the beginning, the churches were govern- 
ed, not by Presbyters, but by a Bishop, And suppose 
he had said, not that a usage, after a while, gradually 
took place, but that it was a usage from the first, that 
the whole care of the churches devolved upon one, and 
that it was always the case, that one was chosen from 
among the Presbyters to be placed over the others. 
5 



€6 



LECTURE III. 



And, instead of inculcating humility and meekness upon 
Bishops from the consideration, that they are above 
Presbyters rather by custom, then by the truth of the 
Lord's appointment, suppose he had inculcated submis- 
sion upon Presbyters, from the consideration that Bish- 
ops were placed over them not merely by common cus- 
tom, but by the Lord's appointment ; — suppose that these 
and other ancient Fathers had thus given the very same 
testimony in favor of the Apostolic origin of Prelacy, as 
they actually gave against it ; would not the advocates 
of Prelacy feel, that they were in possession of a new 
and glorious argument, and that all the world must ac- 
knowledge their cause to be founded upon a rock. 

But I meet the argument from early practice in ano- 
ther way. Suppose then, that Prelacy was in fact intro- 
duced soon after the age of the Apostles, and was ex- 
tended rapidly through the Christian world. It did un- 
questionably exist thus extensively in the fourth and fifth 
centuries. Suppose, if you will, that this was the case 
in the age immediately following that of the Apostles. 
My quest on is, how far and on what grounds the prac- 
tice of uninspired men can bind us ? Why should we 
feel ourselves obliged to adhere to a principle of order, 
which they set on foot ? However near to the Apostles 
they may have lived, what claim have they to dictate to 
us, above what uninspired men have in modern times ? 
The Apostles mourned over the ignorance, the supersti- 
tion, the party spirit and strife, and various other corrup- 
tions, that appeared in the churches which they had 
planted, and even among the religious teachers who lived 
in their day ; and they bore a solemn testimony against 
evils so prevalent, and so dishonorable to the character 



CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 



67 



of Christians. And can you think it is the will of God, 
that we should regard those as safe guides, who were so 
prone to corrupt the simplicity of the gospel, and to run 
into all sorts of disorder, as many of the churches of Asia 
did, even in the Apostolic age, and who thus incurred 
the most painful tokens of the divine displeasure ? There 
were indeed faithful ministers and Christians. And such 
have been found in later times ; and such are found at 
the present day. But does the piety and fidelity of min- 
isters and Christians render them infallible, and author- 
ize them to unsettle what the Apostles settled ? Does 
it invest them with power to control our opinions or our 
practice ? Are we to follow tJiem^ any farther than they 
followed Christ and the Apostles ? And when we find 
uninspired men differ among themselves, as they always 
have done, especially in regard to church government ; 
to which of them shall we submit ? Some say, to the 
most ancient, — to those who lived nearest to the Apostles, 
and who were most likely to know what the mind of the 
Apostles was. But what special title had the most an- 
cient Christians to dictate to those who should come af- 
ter them ? Were there not contentions, and errors, and 
corruptions among them? And why is it not just as 
proper and necessary for us to examine their opinions 
and practices, and to receive or reject them according as 
they agree or disagree with the word of God, as it is that 
we should treat the opinions and practices of modern 
Divines in this manner ? Who will assert, that unin- 
spired men in the primitive church, — men just recovered 
from the errors of Judaism, subject to so much ignorance 
and prejudice, and exposed to so many influences adverse 
to the purity of our religion, — who will assert that such 



68 



LECTURE III. 



men in such circumstances, are entitled to our venera- 
tion and confidence, above the best men that have lived 
since the Reformation ? If we were reduced to the ne- 
cessity of following mere human guides, — uninspired 
teachers of religion ; who of us would not prefer Calvin, 
Leighton and Scott, Howe, Edwards and Dwight, before 
Tertullian, Cyril and Origen, Chrysostom, Ambrose and 
Augustine ? 

The remarkable saying of Tertullian has been often 
repeated; Whatever is Jirst is true; whatever is later 
is false," Look at this a moment. The traditions of 
the Jews, which made void the law of God, were '^Jirst 
and Christ's sermon on the mount was later J' It may 
be said, the law of God was still first and those tra- 
ditions " later." This I admit. And I say too, that the 
New Testament Scriptures were first" and the writ- 
ings of the early Fathers later." The rule of Tertul- 
lian is sometimes right, and sometimes wrong, and of 
course cannot be relied upon. It is not a fact, that men 
were, in all cases, nearer to the truth, in proportion as 
they lived nearer to the time of the Apostles. Who will 
say, that the Catholic writers, who supported all the cor- 
ruptions of the Church of Rome previously to the days 
of Luther, were nearer to the truth, than the great lights 
of the Reformed churches ? 

Some think, that those opinions and practices, in 
which the Fathers all agreed^ must be supposed to cor- 
respond with the instructions of the Apostles. In regard 
to this, I remark, first, that the Fathers were all agreed 
on hardly any subject, certainly not on the subject now 
under consideration. But, secondly, if they had all been 
agreed, it would prove nothing to the purpose. For if 



CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 



69 



a few good men may agree in adopting a particular error, 
why may not many ? We well know that the Fathers 
generally fell into palpable mistakes on moral and reli- 
gious subjects. And can we set limits to the number of 
uninspired men, who, under the influence of their own 
imperfections, and of unpropitious outward circumstan- 
ces, may fall into false opinions or wrong practices? 
We can never safely make it our rule to follow the mul- 
titude, — to believe what they believe, and to do what 
they do. If you could argue in favor of Prelacy, that it 
was universally adopted not only in the fourth, and the 
third, and the second century, but before the close of the 
first ; I could by no means admit the validity of the ar- 
gument, but should still maintain, that no agreement of 
uninspired men, unsupported by the Scriptures, can be 
obligatory on us. I must adhere steadfastly to the duty 
enjoined by Christ and his Apostles, to search the word 
of God, to receive the truths and conform to the direc- 
tions there made known, and to reject all human tradi- 
tions and inventions not conformed to it. In direct and 
everlasting opposition to the dogma of the Romish 
church, I hold that the Scriptures, by themselves, are, 
to all Christians, the sufficient and only authoritative 
rule of faith and practice. 

But here you may ask, whether there was not such a 
change of circumstances, as justified the Fathers in de- 
parting from the instructions and the example of the 
Apostles. We have already considered this general 
question in relation to what is more commonly called 
church discipline. We are now to consider it in relation 



70 



LECTURE III. 



to different orders in the ministry^ and the authority of 
the Prelate, 

The parity of ministers, which was established by the 
Apostles, must have been perfectly just and proper at the 
time ; because the Apostles were infallible. And it must 
be just and proper at all times, unless such circumstan- 
ces occur, as plainly show it to be the will of God, that 
Prelacy should be introduced. Is it then a fact, that 
such circumstances have occurred ? And particularly, 
did they occur during the period when Prelacy was first 
introduced, that is, during one or two hundred years 
after the Apostolic age ? And was there at that time 
any sufficient reason for the change ? 

The chief reason for establishing Prelacy, according 
to Jerome, and other Christian Fathers, was, that divi- 
sions and disorders prevailed, and it was thought these 
evils might be avoided by investing particular ministers 
with higher power, and making them Overseers or Bish- 
ops, not only over the churches, but over other ministers. 
Our inquiry is, whether this was a sufficient reason for 
the change. 

Here then consider, that great divisions and irregu- 
larities early appeared in the churches which the Apos- 
tles planted, to which they wrote Epistles, and over which 
they extended their watchful care. This was specially 
the case in the Corinthian church. With what sorrow 
of heart did Paul notice the disorders which had crept 
into that church, or that cluster of churches ; and with 
what earnestness did he labor to put an end to them ! And 
he was so under the guidance of that wisdom which is 
from above, that he must have known what means would 
be best adapted to remove, and afterwards to prevent^ 



CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 



71 



those hurtful disorders. Why did he not hit upon the ex- 
pedient, which Episcopalians would instantly resort to in 
any such case ? Why did he not plainly tell the Corin- 
thians, that common ministers and the members of the 
church had too much concern in administering their af- 
fairs, and that, if they would keep things in order, they 
must have a Bishop, who should have power to rule over 
the churches, and over other ministers ? There was, at 
that time, the very reason for introducing Prelacy, which 
has been considered most weighty. There could not have 
been a more favorable opportunity to make the change. 
The Apostle was alive, and had power to do the very thing 
which was called for. The reason for a more energetic 
government existed in all its strength ; and the Apostle 
knew it. He told them in the way of solemn rebuke, 
that they were carnal ; that there was envying, and strife,, 
and divisions among them ; that they were formed into 
parties, each party setting up its own favorite teacher ; 
that there were enormous immoralities in the church ; 
and that they were guilty of shocking irregularities, even 
while commemorating the death of Christ. The Apos- 
tle knew of all these disorders, and he knew what was 
the best way to remedy them, and to promote the welfare 
of the church. And it was the easiest thing in the world 
for the great Apostle to say, if he had only thought so ; — 
you have tried the principle of equality among ministers, 
and popular 'proceedings in the church, long enough. You 
cannot succeed, while there are so many concerned in the 
government. You must have a Bishop. But the Apos- 
tle did not think so. Amid all his advices to the Corin- 
thians, he did not advise to anything like this. He had 
seen what evils prevailed, and he clearly foresaw what 



72 



LECTURE III. 



divisions and strifes would disturb and injure the church- 
es after his decease. But so it was, that he never gave 
them the least hint in favor of Prelacy. 

It may perhaps be alleged, that those disorders, which 
called for a change of government, afterwards increased 
in the church. Doubtless this was the case. And the 
Apostles knew it would be. And they were authorized 
to do whatever the order and prosperity of the church 
then required, and whatever it would require in time to 
come. It was perfectly within their province, as Apos- 
tles acting in the name of Christ, to give instructions for 
;the use of Christians through all ages, to the end of the 
world. In many respects they actually did this. Why 
did they not say something in favor of Prelacy ? If they 
«aw that this was an establishment which would be call- 
ed for in following ages, though not called for at that 
time ; why did they not leave a direction to this effect, — 
•that when circumstances should evidently require it, min- 
isters and churches should introduce Prelacy, or, at 
least, should have liberty to do it ? 

The conclusion of the whole matter is, that the intro- 
duction of Prelacy, in times subsequent to the Apostles, 
was an innovation, wholly unauthorized, — a measure 
founded on reasons, which the Apostles themselves had 
fully considered, but which they did not regard as fa- 
voring such a change. The measure was, in my ap- 
prehension, adopted from the faulty inclination, so fre- 
quently found even in good men, to overlook the divine 
directions, and to think themselves able to improve the 
simple institutions of the New Testament. 

The early Christian Fathers w^ere certainly fallible. 
And one of the great mistakes which they appear to have 



CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 



73 



made in regard to the present subject, was, their suppos- 
ing that the various evils which they wished to remedy, 
arose from some defect in the system of ecclesiastical 
order which was established by Christ and the Apostles. 
Had this really been the case ; then some alteration in 
that system might have answered the purpose intended. 
But the dissensions, and party-strife, and other evils, 
which so widely prevailed, sprung from another and a 
very different source, that is, the corrupt inclinations of 
men. This is what we are expressly taught by the Apos- 
tle, who says to the Corinthian church with reference 
to this very subject ; " ye are yet carnal that is, under 
the influence of corrupt, earthly affection. For where- 
as there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions ; 
are ye not carnal, and walk as men.'' It was this car- 
nal, sinful state of Christians, not the want of a Bishop, 
which was the source of the evils complained of Ac- 
cordingly when the Apostle strives most earnestly to 
remedy these evils, he does not recommend any change 
whatever in the plan of Church Government which had 
been acted upon at Corinth. And you will observe that, 
instead of proposing that one church officer should be 
invested with authority over others, he really teaches 
the contrary. For he labors to make the impression, 
that the ministers of religion, even Paul and Apollos and 
Peter, are in themselves nothing, and can do nothing; 
that their success depends wholly on God ; that they are 
all fellow-laborers and fellow-servants of Christ, and 
therefore that one of them should not be set up above 
others, as the object of admiration, or the head of a party. 
Instead of giving advice to the Corinthians, to put down 
their dissensions by establishing a superior order in the 



74 



LECTURE III. 



ministry, and a more consolidated and efficient govern- 
ment in the church, he deals plainly and faithfully with 
their hearts, and tells them that the disorders of which 
he complains, originated there. The result of his teach- 
ing is, that the way to rid themselves of the hurtful evils 
existing among them, is, to subdue that inward, spiritual 
evil from which they spring. 

Let not the lesson here taught, be forgotten. If any 
of you suppose, that the disorders which have existed and 
the unhappy events which have often taken place in the 
Puritan churches and among the Puritan ministers of 
New England, have sprung chiefly, or in any considera- 
ble degree, from defects in our plan of Church Govern- 
ment, and that a remedy may be found in the adoption 
of an essentially different plan ; you have, in my appre- 
hension, fallen into a great mistake. There may indeed 
be faults, as I doubt not there are, in our system of Ec- 
clesiastical Polity, and these faults may have more or less 
augmented the evils complained of; and, in relation to 
this matter, the Head of the Church may call us to some 
special and important duties. But keep in mind, that 
ihe principal source of the evils lies in the faulty disposi- 
tions and characters of ministers and church members. 
Were ministers and Christians right, — did they bear the 
image of Christ, and abound in the fruits of the Spirit ; 
they would honor God, and be peaceful, orderly and 
happy, although their form of government might be very 
imperfect. But if they are essentially wanting in these 
moral excellencies, — if, like Christians at Corinth, they 
are carnal, and walk as unsanctified men; evils will 
come. It is in vain to expect that, by any change in 
outward forms, and particularly by a change unauthor- 



CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 



75 



ized by the word of God, we can prevent those disorders, 
which arise from the inward corruptions of men profes- 
sing godliness. Guard against so great a mistake. The 
Christian Fathers thought they could cure prevailing 
divisions and wicked practices among Christians by 
changing the form of church government, and by giving 
higher, and still higher authority to Bishops. But did 
they succeed? Did disorder and immorality subside? 
Or did they grow less from time to time, in proportion 
as the power of hierarchs was increased? How was it, 
when ecclesiastical government was most completely 
consolidated, and the chief Bishop was invested with 
plenary authority, not only over churches and Priests, 
but over Kings and Emperors ? When was it that moral 
evils, the most tremendous and desolating, overspread the 
nations of Christendom ? And what was the actual result 
of the Prelatical scheme of Church Government, from its 
commencement and gradual spread in ages subsequent 
to the Apostles, to the period of its highest supremacy 
just before the Reformation ? Prelacy, in various forms 
and degrees, certainly had a long and thorough trial. 
"What was the result ? 

I have now examined the question, whether there were 
any sufficient reasons after the age of the Apostles, for 
departing from the simple plan of Church Government 
which prevailed in their day, and introducing the Epis- 
copal scheme. The particular reason which induced 
the change, as stated by Jerome, was the existence of 
divisions and contentions in the churches. We have 
seen, that this very reason existed in its full strength, 
during the life of the Apostles, and was particularly con- 
sidered and publicly noticed by the Apostle Paul; who^ 



76 



LECTURE III. 



however, looked upon those evils as arising, not from 
the want of Prelacy, but from the want of a right spirit 
among Christians; and who, of course, found in the 
existence of those evils, no reason for a change in the 
ecclesiastical polity which he had established. We have 
seen too that Prelacy, when introduced, did not answer 
the purpose intended ; that under its influence the ex- 
isting evils rather increased ; and that, when its power 
came to its highest elevation, and the Bishop of Rome 
swayed the sceptre over all Europe, then it was that the 
most shocking enormities prevailed. We have consid- 
ered that Prelacy in that line has had a fair trial, and 
has clearly shown what are its genuine fruits. 

In my remarks on this point, I have been willing to 
admit, for the sake of argument, that Prelacy was intro- 
duced very early, that is, in the period immediately 
succeeding the Apostles. And the impression which I 
have aimed to make upon your minds, is, that those who 
succeeded the Apostles, being uninspired and fallible 
men, were not in any way authorized to make an essen- 
tial change in the existing plan of Church Government, 
and that what was done on the subject, if it had really 
been done in the age next to that of the Apostles, and 
even by those who had seen the Apostles, cannot bind 
our consciences; — unless it can be shown, — which it 
cannot be, — that they received some instructions or some 
power to act on the subject, beyond what is recorded in 
the New Testament. 

But I have for argument's sake, admitted more than 
is true. And I must here state it, as another serious 
objection against Prelacy, that it does as really fail of 
being supported by the practice of the Primitive church 



CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 



77 



immediately folloioing the Apostles, as hy the Apostles 
themselves. 

If the Episcopal scheme had prevailed at that early 
period, it would seem, at first view, to furnish a plausi- 
ble argument in its favor ; as it might, with some show 
of reason, be alleged, that those Christians who lived at 
that time, and some of whom had even been personally 
acquainted with the Apostles, undoubtedly knew what 
the mind of the Apostles was, and were disposed, in all 
their proceedings, to conform to it. But it has been 
clearly shown by different writers, and acknowledged by 
many Episcopalians, that Prelacy has not the benefit of 
this argument. I have no time to go into a particular 
consideration of the merits of the case ; and must con- 
tent myself, according to a previous suggestion, with 
merely laying before you, in a few simple propositions, 
what I apprehend to be the fair results of the most learn- 
ed, laborious, and candid investigation of the subject ; 
referring you to the works in which the investigation is 
found in its best form. 

1. No satisfactory proof can be derived from Eccle- 
siastical History, that Prelacy prevailed more or less 
during the first century. The Letters of Ignatius, it is 
well known, are of such doubtful authority, that they 
cannot be properly appealed to in this controversy. Cle- 
ment's Letters, which are allowed to be genuine, and 
which were written near the close of the first century, 
contain evidence against the existence of Prelacy at that 
time. See quotations from Clement's Letters, in Cole- 
man's Primitive Church, p. 164, 5. 

2. There is no clear evidence that Prelacy prevailed, 
or began to prevail, during the first half of the second 



■78 



LECTURE III. 



century. The Fathers, who lived at that period, have 
left nothing that favors the idea that this was the case ; 
and the writings of those who followed, contain much 
evidence to the contrary. The supposition of some Epis- 
copalians, that the Apostles gave oral instructions, which 
are not recorded, but which were of divine authority, 
and were carried into effect by those who came after 
them, has nothing to support it, or to render it even pro- 
bable. If there were any such instructions, who were 
the men that must have received them, and that must 
have remembered and executed them, except those who 
had a personal intercourse with the Apostles ? But as 
it is evident that neither they nor their immediate suc- 
cessors did execute any such instructions ; it is reasona- 
ble to conclude that the supposed instructions had not 
been received. For who would be willing to charge the 
early Fathers with neglecting, for fifty years, instructions 
which some of them had received, and which all of them 
knew had been received, from the lips of the Apostles 1 
That the Apostles gave directions in favor of Prelacy, 
which were to remain unexecuted till a distant future 
time, is utterly incredible. But there is positive evi- 
dence, that during the first half of the second century it 
was as it had been before ; — that the same officers, with- 
out distinction of rank, were called Bishops and Presby- 
ters interchangeably, and that the members of the church 
had an important agency in disciplining offenders, and 
in managing other ecclesiastical affairs. 

3. When Prelacy was introduced, in the latter part of 
the second or beginning of the third century, it was in- 
troduced very gradually. And for some time after Bish- 
ops began here and there to be distinguished above their 



CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 



79 



brethren, it was only a temporary or occasional distinc- 
tion, — much like the distinction which is now conferred 
on those who are made Moderators or Presidents of ec- 
clesiastical Assemblies, — those Bishops still having per- 
manent oversight over single churches, not over a dio- 
cese, and claiming no exclusive right of ordination. 
There was nothing which had the essential features of 
what is now called Prelacy, for at least two hundred 
years after the commencement of the Christian era. 
And while modern Episcopalians can plead in defence 
of their scheme, the general practice of the church in 
the fourth and fifth and following centuries, they cannot 
plead that such a practice gained footing more or less in 
the earliest periods of the church. Accordingly, when 
they speak of Primitive practice as in their favor, they 
ought in justice to say, that they use the word Primitive 
with great latitude, and not as relating to any time pre- 
vious to the latter part of the second or beginning of the 
third century. What is most properly called Primitive, 
they cannot claim. — When any man in New England 
says, that it was the Pinmitive practice of the Puritans 
to keep the Sabbath very strictly, and to take special 
pains for the literary and religious education of the 
young ; is he not understood by every one to refer to 
their practice the first forty or fifty years after their arri- 
val here? And should we not think him guilty of a 
great impropriety, if he should assert that this or that 
was the Primitive practice of the Puritans in New Eng- 
land, when there was no such practice for the first half 
century and more, and the practice spoken of was intro- 
duced gradually afterwards, and was a real innovation 
upon primitive usage, and a palpable departure from it ? 



80 



LECTURE III. 



Primitive practice is the original ox first practice ; prac- 
tice from the beginning. If any still think themselves 
warranted to say, that Prelacy was truly the Primitive 
practice, I prefer not to contend with them, but to leave 
them to settle the question with the most learned and 
impartial authors, ancient and modern, who have written 
on the subject. 

The following are the principal works to which I must 
refer those, who wish to pursue the examination of the 
subject more particularly and fully, than I am able to do 
in these Lectures. 

Jerome's Annotations on the Epistle to Titus. Nean- 
der's History of the Christian Church, and his Planting 
and Training of the Christian Church by the Apostles. 
Campbell's Lectures on Ecclesiastical History. Chaun- 
cy's View of Episcopacy. Enquiry into the Constitution 
of the Primitive Church, by Sir Peter King, Chancellor 
of England. Review of Essays on Episcopacy, by Dr. 
Mason in the Christian Magazine. Miller's Letters on 
the Constitution and Order of the Christian Ministry. 
Goode's Divine Rule of Faith and Practice, particularly 
vol. ii. Smyth on Presbytery and Prelacy. Barnes's 
Apostolic Church. Coleman's Primitive Church. 

In this list you find two Episcopalians, King and 
Goode, both writers of distinguished reputation. As the 
last work abovementioned, by Rev. Lyman Coleman, 
will be issued from the press about the same time with 
these Lectures, and of course is not yet known to the 
public ; I would just say, that in my opinion, the work 
evinces excellent talents and scholarship, patient and 
thorough research, and entire fairness and impartiality. 
It was composed in the most favorable circumstances, 



CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 



81 



and comes forth with the special recommendation of Ne- 
ander, one of the most distinguished Historians of this 
or any other age. 

Before closing this Lecture, I shall take the liberty to 
make the following supposition. Suppose that those 
Episcopalians, who hold to the High Church principles, 
should find, on farther inquiry, that there is no clear evi- 
dence that Prelacy existed in the Apostolic age, or in 
the age following, and should be as fully convinced as 
Archbishop Whately and a multitude of other Episcopa- 
lians have been and are, that their doctrine of Apostolic 
Succession and the Divine Right of Prelacy, is destitute 
of proof, — suppose they should be well convinced of this, 
and should, like Whately and others, candidly admit it ; 
would they, on that account, renounce Episcopacy? 
Would they not at once adopt the more moderate and 
rational principles which have governed a large part of 
ministers and a larger part of intelligent laymen in the 
Episcopal church, both in America and Great Britain ? 
Now if this would be the case with High Churchmen, 
as I am confident it would be ; then I should think they 
might safely relax their efforts a little in defending their 
peculiar and exclusive doctrines, seeing that those doc- 
trines are not, even in their view, essential to the exist- 
ence of their church, and seeing that, in the view of so 
many of their Episcopal brethren, and in the view of all 
Protestant Christians except themselves, their church 
can exist and prosper far better without those principles, 
than with them. 



6 



LECTURE IV. 



The next objection which I shall urge is against what 
is involved in the Episcopal doctrine of Apostolic Succes- 
sion, I am aware that this doctrine, as now held by a 
considerable proportion of Episcopal ministers in Eng- 
land and America, that is, by those who are called the 
High Church party, is and has been rejected by another 
part. And I would here give you notice, that what I 
have to offer in opposition to this doctrine, and much 
that I have laid before you on other subjects, has no re- 
lation to those Episcopalians who dissent from this doc- 
trine, and who adhere to the Episcopal church on 
other and more rational principles. My remarks here 
will lie against the doctrine itself; which I understand 
to be this ; that the blessings of the Christian dispensa- 
tion are restricted to the channel of a ministry Episco- 
pally ordained ; that no one is a true minister of the gos- 
pel, unless he has been duly ordained by a Bishop, duly 
consecrated by another Bishop, and he by another, and 
so on through an unbroken series of duly consecrated 
Bishops extending back to the Apostles ; that no minis- 
ters who are not found in that line of succession, have 
been rightly ordained, or have a right to preach, or to 
administer the sacraments ; that if non-Episcopal minis- 
ters undertake to preach and administer the sacraments, 
they assume what does not belong to them, and their 



84 



LECTURE IV. 



ministrations must be expected to prove inefficacious, as 
they have not received and cannot communicate the sa- 
cramental virtue ; that whatever their intellectual and 
spiritual qualifications may be, they are not true Chris- 
tian ministers ; while those who have been Episcopally 
ordained are to be acknowledged as true ministers of 
Christ, however ignorant and wicked they may be. 

There are some doctrines which are so extravagant, 
that the bare statement of them is, with all intelligent 
and unprejudiced persons, a sufficient confutation. And 
I think this doctrine is nearly of this character. 

All that my limits will permit me to do in this place, 
is, to make some quotations from writers of the highest 
reputation, with a few remarks of my own. 

" Whether we consider the palpable absurdity of this 
doctrine, its utter destitution of historical evidence, or 
the outrage it implies on all Christian charity, it is equal- 
ly revolting. The arguments against it are infinite ; the 
evidence for it absolutely nothing. It rests not upon 
one doubtful assumption, but upon fifty. — -First, the very 
basis on which it rests — the claim of Episcopacy itself 
to be considered undoubtedly and exclusively of Apos- 
tolical origin — has been most fiercely disputed by men 
of equal erudition and acuteness, and, so far as can be 
judged, of equal integrity and piety. — And one would 
think that the only lesson, which could or would be 
learned from the controversy, would be the duty of mu- 
tual charity, and a disposition to concede, that the bless- 
ings of Christianity are compatible with various systems 
of church polity. God forbid that we should for a mo- 
ment admit that they are restricted to any one. — But this 
first proposition, however doubtful, is susceptible of evi- 



CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 



85 



dence almost demonstrative, compared with that offered 
for half a dozen others involved in the integral reception 
of the doctrine of Apostolical succession. Accordingly, 
there are thousands of Episcopalians, who, while they 
affirm a preponderance of evidence in favor of Episcopa- 
cy, contemptuously repudiate this incomprehensible dog- 
ma, — The theory is, that each Bishop, from the Apos- 
tolic times, has received in his consecration a mysterious 
" gift," and also transmits to every Priest at his ordina- 
tion a mysterious " gift," indicated by the awful words. 
Receive the Holy Ghost ; that on this the right of Priests 
to assume their functions, and the preternatural grace of 
the sacraments administered by them, depends ; that 
Bishops, once consecrated, instantly become invested 
with the remarkable property of transmitting the gift" 
to others ; — that this high gift has been incorruptibly 
transmitted — from the primitive age till now — through 
the hands of impure, profligate and heretical ecclesias- 
tics; — and that it is perfectly irrespective of the moral 
character and qualifications of both Bishop and Priest." 

Numberless are the questions which reason and 
charity forthwith put to the advocates of this doctrine. — 
What is imparted? What transmitted? — Is consecra- 
tion or ordination accompanied, (as in primitive times,) 
by miraculous powers,by any invigoration of intellect, by 
increase of knowledge, by greater purity of heart ? It 
is not pretended : and if it were, facts contradict it, as 
all history testifies. The ecclesiastic who is ignorant or 
impure before ordination, is just as much so afterwards. 
— Do the parties themselves profess to be conscious of 
receiving the gift? No. Is the conveyance made evi- 
dent to us by any proof which certifies any fact whatso- 



86 



LECTURE IV. 



ever, by sense, experience, or consciousness? It is not 
affirmed. In a word, it appears to be a nonentity in- 
scribed with a very formidable name, — a very substan- 
tial shadow.'^ 

" Again, who can certify that this gift has been incor- 
ruptibly transmitted through the impurities, heresies and 
ignorance of the dark ages ? Is there nothing that can 
invalidate Orders? — The chances are infinite that there 
have been flaws somewhere or other in the long chain 
of succession ; and — as no one knows where the fatal 
breach may have been, it is sufficient to spread universal 
panic through the whole church. What Bishop can be 
sure that he and his predecessors in the same line have 
always been duly consecrated ? or what Presbyter, that 
he was ordained by a Bishop who had a right to ordain ?" 

But the difficulties do not end here. It is asked, 

how a man who is no true Christian, can be a true Chris- 
tian minister ; — how he, who is not even a disciple of 
Christ, can be a genuine successor of the Apostles." 

But — will Christians be content to receive this 
strange doctrine ? Are they willing to sacrifice even 
charity itself to an absurdity ? Powerful as are the ar- 
guments on all hands against this paradox, none is so 
powerful with us as this. — We feel that if there were 
nothing else to say, there is no proposition more certain, 
than that a dogma, which consigns the Lutheran, the 
Scottish, and indeed the whole reformed non-Episcopal 
clergy to contempt, however holy, and which authenti- 
cates the claims of every Episcopal Priest, however unho- 
ly, — must be utterly alien from the spirit of the New 
Testament.''*' 

* See Edinburgh Review, 1843, On Puseyism, or, the Oxford 
Tractarian School. 



CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 



87 



Since the first century, not less, in all probability, 
than a hundred thousand persons have exercised the 
functions of Bishops. That many of these have not been 
Bishops by Apostolic succession, is quite certain. Hook- 
er admits that deviations from the general rule have been 
frequent, and, with a boldness worthy of his high and 
statesman-like intellect, pronounces them to have been 
often justifiable.^'^ 

The doctrine of Apostolical succession is overthrown 
by the clear and abundant evidence which we have from 
the early Fathers, that ordination was performed by 
Presbyters. Any one who wishes to be acquainted with 
this evidence in its details, may consult Goode's Divine 
Rule, vol. ii. Coleman's work on the Constitution and 
Worship of the Apostolical and Primitive Church, 
Smyth's Presbytery and Prelacy, and other well known 
works. 

That there may be lawful ordinations by Presbyters 
without a Bishop is conceded and maintained by many 
Episcopalians, and those of the first respectability. Hook- 
er gives it as his decided opinion, " that there may be 
sometimes very just and sufficient reason to allow ordina- 
tions made without a Bishop." 

Archbishop Whately, a man of distinguished talents, 
learning, and integrity, and sustaining the highest office 
in the Episcopal church, after a thorough examination 
of the doctrine of Apostolic succession, comes to the 
conclusion, that it is destitute of satisfactory proof. 

He says : If a man consider it as highly probable 
that the particular minister at whose hands he receives 



* See Edinburgh Review for 1839, On Church and State. 



88 



LECTURE IV. 



the sacred ordinances, is really apostolically descended, 
this is the very utmost point to which he can, with any 
semblance of reason, attain : and the more he reflects 
and inquires, the more cause for hesitation will he find. 
There is not a minister in Christendom who is able to 
trace up with any approach to certainty his own spiritu- 
al pedigree." If a Bishop has not been duly conse- 
crated his ordinations are null ; and so are the min- 
istrations of those ordained by him, and so on with- 
out end. The poisonous taint of informality, if it once 
creep in undetected, will spread the infection of nullity 
to an indefinite extent. — And who can pronounce that 
during the — dark ages, no such taint was ever introdu- 
ced ? Irregularities could not have been wholly excluded 
without a perpetual miracle. Amidst the numerous cor- 
ruptions of doctrine and of practice, and gross supersti- 
tions, that crept in — we find descriptions not only of the 
profound ignorance and profligacy of many of the clergy, 
but of the grossest irregularities in respect of discipline 
and form. We read of Bishops consecrated when mere 
children ; — of men officiating who barely knew their let- 
ters; — of Prelates expelled, and others put in their place, 
by violence ; — of illiterate and profligate laymen and hab- 
itual drunkards, admitted to holy orders ; — and in short, 
of the prevalence of every kind of disorder and indecen- 
cy. It is inconceivable that any one, even moderately 
acquainted with history, can feel — any approach to cer- 
tainty, that amidst all this confusion and corruption, 
every requisite form was, in every instance, strictly ad- 
hered to ; and that no one not duly consecrated or 

ordained, was admitted to sacred offices. 

The ultimate consequence must be, that any one 



CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 



89 



who sincerely believes that his claim to the benefits of the 
gospel covenant depends on his own minister's claim to 
the supposed sacramental virtue of true ordination, and 
this again, on perfect Apostolical succession, — must be 
involved, in proportion as he reads, and inquires, and re- 
flects on the subject, in the most distressing doubt and 
perplexity." The whole work of Whately on the King- 
dom of Christ is worthy of the most attentive perusal. 

Archbishop Usher, one of the brightest ornaments of 
the Episcopal Church, affirmed, that in ancient times 
Presbyters alone successively ordained even Bishops. 
And he said, he honored the non-Episcopal churches of 
Europe as true members of the church universal, and 
should readily receive the Sacrament at the hands of 
Dutch ministers, if he were in Holland. Bishop Stilling- 
fleet says : It was acknowledged by the stoutest cham- 
pions of Episcopacy, before these late unhappy divisions, 
that ordination performed by Presbyters in case of ne- 
cessity, is valid.'' Sir Peter King says, he finds clear- 
er proofs of Presbyters ordaining, in the early church, 
than of their administering the Lord's supper. I might 
multiply testimonies of like kind from Episcopalians al- 
most without end. But it is sufficient for my purpose to 
give you a few specimens. 

I have one remark of my own to add. The Apostle 
Paul in his Epistle to Timothy and Titus, gives a very 
particular description of what he regards as essential 
qualifications of a Bishop. But he makes no mention 
of the circumstance of his being duly ordained. My re- 
mark is, that had he attached such consequence to this 
circumstance, as many do at this day, it is not probable 
he would have passed it in silence. In this and in every 



90 



LECTURE IV. 



other instance he showed, that his mind was intent upon 
important realities, and not upon outward forms. It is 
indeed said, in order to show the importance of outward, 
visible forms and rites, that man must have a body as 
well as a spirit. I agree to this. But we must take 
care to let the body be as God has made it, never at- 
tempting to add to it, or in any way to alter it. If true 
spiritual religion is to be embodied in outward forms and 
ceremonies, let those forms and ceremonies be as God 
in the New Testament appointed them to be. This vi- 
sible body of internal, invisible Christianity, when not 
misshapen or made monstrous by man's contrivances, is 
a fit companion and help to the spirit. 

I must now refer this doctrine of Apostolical succes- 
cession to your own free consideration ; only expressing 
my conviction, that the doctrine understood in that high 
and exclusive sense in which I have here considered it, 
though held very tenaciously by many at the present 
time, will, by its extravagance and uncharitableness, oc- 
casion reproach and injury to the cause of Episcopacy, 
and will, for that and other reasons, be gradually, and, 
in the end, entirely abandoned by Protestant Episcopa- 
lians, — retaining its seat only where it properly belongs. 

I cannot leave the present topic without adverting to 
the general question of divine appointment and divine 
authority, in regard to the gospel ministry. Let me say 
then, that Presbyterians and Congregationalists hold as 
much as Episcopalians, that the gospel ministry is ap- 
pointed of God, and derives all its authority ultimately 
from God, not from man. But it is here as in other 
cases, that God's appointment is ordinarily carried into 
effect and his government administered, through the agen- 



CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 



91 



cy of man. We see it to be so in the general move- 
ments of divine providence. But it would be culpable 
presumption in us to decide, that the manner in which 
God executes his appointments is and must be always 
the same. In his infinite wisdom, he chooses a variety 
of methods, always adapting them to circumstances, and 
to the ends which he had in view. Under the former 
dispensation, he gave Prophets to his people in ways 
suited to the purposes intended. At the beginning of 
the new dispensation, he gave Apostles to be witnesses 
of the miracles of Christ, preachers of his gospel, the 
first founders of Christian churches, etc., and he gave 
them in a manner adapted to those objects. But even 
here, the manner was not the same. Matthias was cho- 
sen in a way different from the other eleven, and Paul in 
a way different from any of the twelve. But the age of 
miracles has ceased, and the divine appointment is now 
executed in the ordinary course of Providence. The 
essential qualifications of ministers are pointed out by 
an inspired Apostle, but not the particular manner in 
which they shall come into the sacred office. If minis- 
ters possess the qualifications required, and are inducted 
into the ministry in a regular and becoming manner, and 
do the duties of the office faithfully, they are God^s min- 
isters, and he truly gives tliem for the good of his church, 
whether he brings them into the office in one way or 
another. Faithful ministers in the Episcopal church 
are doubtless God's gift, and Christians should thank 
him for them, and receive them as such. And many 
and precious have been these gifts, and precious the 
blessings resulting from them. And are not ministers 
in the Presbyterian, Congregational, Baptist and Metho- 



92 



LECTURE IV. 



dist churches equally God's gift ? And should not 
Christians, particularly those who hav^e received spiritual 
profit under their ministry, thank God for them, and for 
all the blessings resulting from their pious labors ? What- 
ever may be the particular mode of proceeding among 
men in introducing well qualified and faithful ministers 
into the sacred office ; they are there hy divine appoint- 
ment. They are God's ministers ; and he owns them 
and blesses them as such. And they have equally a di- 
vine right to perform all the duties of the ministerial of- 
fice. 

The principle which I maintain may be illustrated by 
a particular reference to civil government. The Bible 
teaches as plainly and expressly, that civil rulers are 
ministers of God, and divinely appointed, as that preach- 
ers of the gospel and pastors of churches are so. Mo- 
ses, and Samuel, and Saul, and David, were set apart to 
their office as rulers, by a special and miraculous divine 
interposition. Afterwards the office of chief ruler or 
king became hereditary ; and those who held the office 
on the ground of hereditary right were lawful kings, and 
were divinely appointed. But observe, that when Ne- 
buchadnezzar, the wicked king of Babylon, conquered 
the Jews and acquired dominion over them, the Prophet 
Jeremiah exhorted and commanded them to serve 
the king of Babylon," and rebuked the false prophets 
who endeavoured to persuade them not to serve him. 
Nebuchadnezzar was then the divinely appointed ruler 
of the Jews; — God sent him to reign over them, and it 
was their duty to submit to him as the ordinance of 
God and obedience to him became obedience to God. 
Even when the Jews returned from their captivity, their 



CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 93 

rulers were indebted for their authority to Cyrus and his 
successors. Now pass over the various events which 
occurred in the Jewish nation, and come down to the 
time of Christ and the Apostles. Through the arrange- 
ments of a just and sovereign Providence, the supreme 
government had passed into the hands of the Romans, 
and Caesar was the king of the Jewish nation. But he 
came to be so, not by any supernatural or special divine 
designation, but by the very ambiguous right of conquest 
and superior power. It was however a wise and right- 
eous God, that shaped the concerns of both these na- 
tions, and, by his overruling providence, subjected the 
Jews to the Roman power. And whatever may be said 
of the means by which the Romans brouglit the Jews 
into subjection, or of the way in which Caesar came to 
have authority over them ; yet as, under divine Provi- 
dence, he actually possessed that authority, and was the 
king of the Jews, Jesus recognized that authority and 
submitted to it, and inculcated the duty of obedience 
upon his disciples. The Apostles did the same. The 
rulers whom they acknowledged as the ministers of God, 
and whom Christians were to honor and obey, were gen- 
erally wicked, tyrannical and cruel men. But the Apos- 
tles considered them as appointed and sent of God to fill 
the office of rulers. The language of Paul, Rom. xiii, 
is very plain. He calls rulers, — and such as were then 
in office, — the higher powers and says they are " of 
God,"— ordained of God,"— the ordinance of God," 
and " ministers of God and requires Christians to be 
subject to them for conscience' sake," i. e. as a duty to 
God. 

Follow now the history of the Roman Empire. See 



94 



LECTURE IV. 



how it was rent asunder by factions and revolutions 
from one century to another, and divided and subdivided 
into a great number of smaller kingdoms or states, each 
one having its own ruler, and generally on the ground 
of hereditary right. — Come at length to the British na- 
tion, where the same principle of hereditary power was 
adopted. But what changes, what revolutions, what 
struggles for power, what wars and fightings took place. 
But whoever was the king, and however he came to be 
so, he was the minister of God^^ and was made so by 
the arrangements of his all-controlling providence ; and 
he was divinely designated to his office, as really^ though 
not in the same manner, as David was. You finally 
reach our own country, where, in consequence of a 
great insurrection and a successful war against the Brit- 
ish Government, to which we had for a long time been 
in lawful subjection, a revolution was effected, and we 
became an independent Republic ; and casting off the 
British authority, we established a government and elect- 
ed rulers in our own way. But our Governours and Pre- 
sidents and Judges are all " ministers of God and go- 
vernment in our Republican form is as much ci divine 
institution, as in the Kingly or Imperial form ; an elec- 
tive Government, as much as a hereditary Government. 
Episcopalians fully recognize this principle, and, in their 
37th Article, expressly affirm the duty of ^' a respectful 
obedience to the civil authority, regularly and legitimate- 
ly constituted." They do not mean that a civil authori- 
ty, in order to be legitimate, must be monarchical, or he- 
reditary, or must be constituted in any one particular 
way. They acknowledge the legitimate authority of our 
Republican Rulers, just as they are, and have altered 



CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 



95 



the English prayer for the King into an American prayer 
for the President ; and in all respects they conduct them- 
selves as faithful subjects of our Republican Government. 
But if our Government should again be changed, and 
should go back to what it was ; if by some strange move- 
ments in our public affairs, it should come to pass, that 
the King of Great Britain should be our King, and we 
should be under a hereditary Monarch, and a House of 
Lords containing the Noblemen and the Bishops, and 
our King should be consecrated to his office by the 
Archbishop of Canterbury ; American Episcopalians, 
though born Republicans, would, like other peaceable 
citizens, readily submit to that Government, though it 
it would be somewhat new to them, and they would re- 
store the Liturgy to its original form, so that they might 
offer up prayer for the King and Queen and the Royal 
Family, and the Parliament. And if after a while there 
should be still another revolution, and another Oliver 
Cromw^ell should come to be established as our chief Ru- 
ler and Protector ; I suppose Episcopalians would still 
be subject to the powers that be," and would pray for 
the Lord Protector, however much he might be like 
Oliver Cromwell, just as they now do for the President. 
Episcopalians, I mean to say, are w^ise and prudent men 
and good citizens, and hold to sound, Bible-principles in 
regard to civil Government ; — which is as truly an ordi- 
nance of God, and is as expressly declared by Scripture 
to be so, as the gospel ministry. 

In this way I think we may get a just idea of the jprin-- 
ciple of succession, — succession not as an abstract thing, 
but as a reality, a matter of fact. There has been a suc- 
cession of Rulers in the different nations of Europe, how 



96 



LECTURE IV. 



many soever may have been the interruptions and chan- 
ges in the order of that succession. So in these United 
States. Have we not, from the beginning of the settle- 
ments in this country, had a succession of Rulers? For a 
long time our Chief Ruler was the King of Great Britain. 
George the Third was the last. He was the Prede- 
cessor of George Washington. There was indeed a 
time when no one man was chief Ruler of all these 
States, — although they were in some important respects, 
under the authority of the Old Congress. But at length 
the Federal Union was formed, and then Washington 
became our Chief Magistrate, as truly as George the 
Third had been before him. Accordingly, as Chief 
Ruler of all these States, Washington was the real suc- 
cessor of George the Third. As Chief Ruler he fol- 
lowed next after George the Third, — who was our last 
Chief Ruler before Washington. Thus these American 
States have had from the beginning to the present time, 
a succession of Rulers, — a real succession, though not 
an unvaried succession, and not an unbroken succession ; 
a succession of Rulers invested with their office in dif- 
ferent ways, but all ordained of God," and all to be 
acknowledged as Ms gift, as much as though they had 
been called to their office as Moses or David was. No 
man in our Republic can be President or Senator, Gov- 
ernour or Judge, unless he is regularly brought into office 
according to our Republican Constitution and Laws. 
But when he is thus regularly brought into office, is he 
not a lawful ruler, and invested with a just authority? 
And does not God give Rulers in this way as truly as in 
any other? Is God's Providence shut up to one way? 
Is not a Republican Government founded on divine 



CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 



97 



right, as much as an hereditary monarchy? Is it a fact, 
that the King of Great Britain or any of the Goverii- 
ments of Europe stand off and refuse to acknowledge 
our government and to have fellowship with it, and deny 
the validity of its acts, because it is Republican 7 And 
do we refuse fellowship with the governments of Europe, 
because they are Monarchical or Imperial? No. Men 
have sense enough to manage these matters properly in 
civil concerns. Any civil officer is acknowledged and 
respected not only in his own country, hut in other coun- 
tries, if he has been put into the office in conformity 
with the laws of his own country, how much soever those 
laws may differ from the laws of other countries. 

Now I verily think that Christian Ministers and 
churches of different countries, and different forms of 
government, should have as much good sense, and, en- 
largedness of mind, and charity, as the officers and mem- 
bers of civil communities. The different denominations 
of Christians have each their order, their rules of pro- 
ceeding, in regard to the formation of churches and the 
ordination of ministers,— all of them alike regarding the 
church and the ministry as divine institutions. Their 
rules of proceeding may not be perfectly wise and pro- 
per, and scriptural, in the view of each other, or in their 
own view. But they all have order of some kind. Now 
if churches or ministers have the essential moral qual- 
ifications prescribed in the word of God, and conform to 
the rules of order in their own denomination ; that is, if 
Richard Cecil and John Newton and their churches 
conform to the rules of the Episcopal denomination, and 
Andrew Fuller and Robert Hall and their churches con- 
form to the rules of the Baptist denomination, and Tim- 
7 



98 



LECTURE IV. 



othy Dwigbt and Edward Payson and their churches, to 
the rules of the Congregational denomination, and Sam- 
uel Davies and John H. Rice and their churches, to the 
rules of the Presbyterian denomination, and Wilber 
Fisk and John Summerfield and their churches, to the 
rules of the Methodist denomination, — assuming that 
these denominations do all hold the essential truths and 
obey the essential laws of the gospel, and have severally 
their rules of order ; — then I say, all these ministers and 
churches are to be acknowledged and treated by each 
other as true Christian ministers and churches. And if 
any one stands off from others merely because they differ 
from him in outward forms; does he not contradict the 
scripture principle which he acknowledges relative to the 
divine institution of civil government? Does he not set 
up outward forms above inward piety and charity ; — for- 
getting that the kingdom of Christ consisteth not in meats 
and drinks, or in tithing mint, anise and cumin, but in 
righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost ? — 
As to rules of order — I would insist upon them as strenu- 
ously as any man ; — not indeed exclusively upon the or- 
der established in my own denomination ; but upon order 
in some way, and its appropriate rules. If a man calls 
himself a Presbyterian minister, or a Baptist minister, or 
an Episcopal minister, and yet has not conformed to the 
order established in his own denomination, and has not a 
regular and honorable standing there ; I cannot receive 
him in the character he assumes, any more than I can re- 
ceive one as a Congregational minister, if he despises 
or neglects Congregational order. Congregationalists as 
well as other non-Episcopal denominations have rules of 
order — -not Episcopal rules — but rules which are intend- 



CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 



99 



ed and in some measure adapted to secure good order. 
Our rules may need mending, as much as the Episcopal 
rules do ; — if you please, even more. Still they are 
rules. And good order is promoted more by a strict 
observance of imperfect rules, than by a negligent, par- 
tial observance of those w^hich are more perfect Let us 
then be always on the side of the principle of order, not, 
I say, in any one form exclusively , — this would be illib- 
eral and narrow, — but in the several forms in which it is 
found among good men. Let us stand up, firmly and 
honorably, without bigotry or party spirit, as zealously 
in behalf of our brethren of other names, as in our own 
behalf, for the principle of order ; endeavouring, with a 
noble liberality, to promote the peace and prosperity of 
every part of the spiritual kingdom of Christ. Thus let 
us aim to feel and act, in some humble measure, as He 
does, who is Head over all things to the church, and 
who looks upon all the branches of it vi^ith equal kind- 
ness, and upon all that is holy in his redeemed people 
of whatever name, with equal complacency. 

I now come to another view of the subject which I 
have undertaken to discuss. There are Episcopalians in 
large numbers, and of great excellence of character, who 
discard the doctrine of Apostolical succession in the pe- 
culiar and exclusive sense in which it is held by the High 
Church party, and who adopt the Episcopal scheme of 
church polity on the ground of expediency. They think 
that the particular form of Church Government, not be- 
ing marked out by the Scriptures, is to be determined 
by Christians in the exercise of their own sober judg- 
ment and discretion. It is the opinion of those I refer 



100 



LE CTURE IV. 



to, that the Episcopal plan is consistent with Scripture, 
and taken as a whole is preferable to any other plan ; — 
that it avoids many evils to which other ecclesiastical 
modes are subject, and secures many advantages of 
which they are deprived. 

I shall now, therefore, go into an inquiry somewhat 
particular, in regard to the expediency of our adopting 
the Episcopal system. The particular form of worship 
and of government in the Episcopal church, and in other 
churches, is now to be considered as a human arrange- 
ment. And, while we hold it to be proper for Episcopa- 
lians, so long as they continue in the Episcopal church, 
to conform to its rules, — and while we consider it to be 
our sacred duty to submit reverently and devoutly to 
whatever is enjoined upon us by divine authority ; we 
feel at liberty to call in question whatever is of human 
origin, and to receive or reject it, according as we find 
reasons for or against it. The simple question, there- 
fore, which we are now to consider, is, whether it is ex- 
pedient for us, who are connected with other denomina- 
tions of Christians, to change our relations, and adopt 
the Episcopal scheme. We are all at liberty to do this, 
if we judge best. The doors of the Episcopal church 
are open, and her Bishops and Priests are ready to re- 
ceive us, and to grant us her privileges and blessings. 
Let us then fairly examine the subject on the ground now 
proposed. The Episcopal form of worship and church 
government, as it exists in America, is, in my judgment, 
better than w^hat is found elsewhere. Let this form of 
Episcopacy be the subject of our careful consideration. 
It is, I suppose, in this form, if in any, that we are to 



CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 



101 



fall in with it ; — unless some of us should chance to feel 
its attractions in its Romish form. 

Here we are to look at the whole state of the Episco- 
pal church in its best form, — its ministers, its members, 
its worship, its ordinances, its rites and ceremonies, eve- 
rything which makes a part of the system now in opera- 
tion. It is a subject of serious moment. In the inves- 
tigation of it, I would cherish a hearty veneration and 
love for whatever is stamped with truth and dignity and 
excellence in the Episcopal church. At the same time 
I shall look upon myself as having a perfect right, as 
every other man has, to make inquiries, and to think, and 
examine, and deliberate, and judge for myself, provided 
I do it in the fear of God, and with charity towards my 
fellow men. And I will thank and honor any man, who 
will go into a similar examination of the system which I 
have adopted, and will faithfully point out its deficiencies 
and its errors. 

In the first place, I turn my attention to what is a pro- 
minent object in the Episcopal church, as it is in every 
other church, — I mean its ministers. And in endeavour- 
ing to satisfy myself whether that church has a fair title 
to be preferred before churches under other forms, I am 
under the necessity of inquiring, not whether Episcopal 
ministers at large are good men and faithful ministers, 
but whether they are better than others. If, as the claim 
of some is, they are God^s true ministers, specially and 
exclusively ; — if at their ordination, they do in fact, 
through the ministration of the Bishop, receive the Holy 
Ghost in a sense in which ministers who are ordained in 
other forms, do not receive that heavenly gift ; it is cer- 
tainly reasonable to expect, that they will excel other 



102 



LECTURE IV. 



ministers in those intellectual and moral excellencies 
which the sacred office requires, and in the fidelity and 
success of their labors in that office. Otherwise, their 
standing in that peculiar relation to God, and their being 
thus endued with the ineffable gift of the Holy Ghost, 
would seem to be of no value. Are then the Episcopal 
clergy, as a body, possessed of higher qualifications than 
other ministers ? Do they more completely sustain the 
character of a bishop or elder, as drawn by an Apostle ? 
Are they more diligent and faithful in the duties of their 
calling, or more fervent in prayer ? Have they a more 
visible likeness to him who went about doing good, and 
who was meek and lowly in heart? Are they more 
sound in the faith ? Do they contend more earnestly for 
the essential doctrines of the Gospel '? Do they more 
earnestly preach Christ crucified, and more fully make 
known his unsearchable riches ? Do they exhibit more 
zeal to spread the word of God, to evangelize the hea- 
then, and convert the world ? Or do they make greater 
efforts and sacrifices to promote good institutions at 
home, and to advance the cause of learning and morali- 
ty ? For the last fifty, or the last hundred or two hun- 
dred years, have the Episcopal clergy in our country 
been superior, in any of the abovementioned respects, to 
Congregational or Presbyterian ministers ? Cast your 
eye over Massachusetts and other parts of New England 
from its first settlement to the present time, and compare 
the three orders of the Episcopal clergy with Congrega- 
tional ministers, and see whether the former have pos- 
sessed higher ministerial excellencies, than the latter ; 
or whether they have enjoyed more visible tokens of the 
divine approbation ; or whether the substantial interests 



CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 



of religion have been more promoted by their bbors? I 
do not by any means undervalue the worth of their char- 
acters, or the usefulness of their labors. I only ask 
whether they have been superior to others. And then^ 
in conclusion, I ask, whether, in this respect, we have 
any substantial reason to change our ground ; and whe- 
ther, if we should change, and go over to Episcopalians, 
we should have a prospect of being connected with a 
better company of ministerial brethren. 

Pass then from the ministry to the churches, and, 
keeping in mind that churches, as well as individuals, 
are known by their fruits, — inquire, whether those of 
the Episcopal order are entitled to more confidence and 
honor, than those of other denominations. Do the mem- 
bers of Episcopal churches exhibit more clear and satis- 
factory evidence of piety ? Are higher qualifications re- 
quired of persons who are admitted to the fellowship of 
the church and the Sacrament of the Supper ? Do 
Episcopal churches maintain a more vigilant inspection, 
and more faithful discipline over their members ? Do 
they show a more devout regard to the Christian Sab- 
bath, and do they give a more constant and reverent at- 
tendance on public worship ? Have professors of religion 
among them less of a worldly spirit, than others ? Are 
they less devoted to fashion and vain amusements ? Have 
they a higher degree of domestic and personal godliness? 
Go from church to church, and from house to house, 
and from closet to closet, and see whether you find more 
abundant fruits of the Spirit, more of pure and undefiled 
religion ? 

Now if neither ministers, nor churches, nor individual 
Christians of the Episcopal denomination, however excel- 



104 LECTURE IV. 

lent they may be, are found to be no more excellent than 
those of other denominations ; — if Prelacy, after time for 
a fair trial, appears to have contributed nothing above 
other forms of church government, to the spiritual bene- 
fit of ministers or churches, or private Christians ; then, 
in these respects, there seems to be no valid reason, why 
we should give up the Ecclesiastical system vi^hich vi^as 
held by our Puritan Fathers, and which we think existed 
in the churches in the time of the Apostles, and adopt 
the system of Prelacy. If, generally, the government of 
the church by Diocesan Bishops has been attended with 
no obvious benefits to any class of men, above other 
forms of government; then, so far as the principle of cx- 
pediency is concerned, what cause have we to give the 
preference to the Episcopal form ? And what shall we 
say of those Episcopalians, who maintain, that their 
church is the only true church of Christ, and that their 
ministers are the only ministers who have received the 
gift of the Holy Spirit to qualify them for their office, 
and that their ordinances are the only ordinances which 
are valid, or which can secure the blessing of God ; while 
yet there is seen among them no degree of spiritual 
health, or spiritual activity, above what is seen among 
those, who, according to their ideas, have no share in 
these invaluable and indispensable blessings 1 I cannot 
but ask, why we should go over to another denomination, 
to obtain benefits, which after all prove to be no bene- 
fits? 

I have, you see, begun to tell you frankly what my 
way of thinking is on the general subject before us in 
respect to expediency. But I cannot stop here. Jus- 
tice to the Puritan Fathers of New England, and to 



CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 



105 



the Founders of this Seminary, and to the great majority 
of Protestant Christians, and to my own deliberate con- 
victions, requires me to say, not only that I see no rea- 
sons in favor of Episcopacy in comparison with other 
Ecclesiastical forms, but various reasons against it. 
These reasons I shall now lay before you. 

I have already endeavoured to show, that Prelacy is a 
departure from the Apostolic institution, — a departure 
without sufficient reasons, and, on the whole, without 
favorable results. I now allege, as my Jirst objection 
against Prelacy on the particular ground of expediency ^ 
that it introduces into the Christian church a principle 
of hurtful tendency ; namely, a distinction in regard to 
office and rank among the ministers of Christ. Were 
this distinction of divine authority, we should be under 
obligation quietly to submit to it, and to confide in that 
divine wisdom which appointed it. But being, as I ap- 
prehend, a human invention, an ordinance of man, we 
are not only permitted but bound in duty to inquire, 
whether the distinction is of such a nature and tendency, 
as to justify us in adopting it. Now there is evidently 
no foundation for this distinction in the characters or 
qualifications of gospel ministers. Those who are made 
Bishops are not superior to all Presbyters. The eleva- 
tion of some above others is not grounded on their supe- 
rior qualifications. There would be a Bishop, though 
no one could be chosen, who was superior to common 
Presbyters. Inquire then whether there is any reason 
for the distinction, in the nature of the work to be done? 
I think not. For all, if properly qualified, are able to 
preach the gospel, administer the ordinances, and pre- 
side in the church ; — Presbyters as well as those who 



106 



LECTURE IV. 



are called Bishops. And as to the work of ordaining ;— 
why is not a Presbytery, that is, a body of Presbyters, as 
competent to set apart others to the same office by prayer 
and the laying on of hands, as a Bishop is ? Now as 
this distinction is made without any obvious reason, — as 
it is not required by the nature of the work to be done, 
and so is arbitrary ; it tends, as every such distinction 
does, to beget pride and self-complacency in those who 
are raised to the superior rank. Some of the Apostles, 
with the meek and lowly Jesus before their eyes, had 
ambition enough in their hearts to aspire after a higher 
office, than others were to occupy. But Jesus told them, 
and their fellow Apostles, that there was no such office in 
his kingdom ; — that they were all brethren. And why 
should we create an office, which is suited to be an ob- 
ject of desire to aspiring minds 1 Is there not as much 
unhallowed ambition latent in the hearts of ministers at 
the present day, as there was in the hearts of John and 
James? And is it worth the while, unnecessarily to 
create a place of distinction, which will be likely to ex- 
cite that unhallowed principle to a perilous activity ? 

But this is not all. So far as one portion of the cler- 
gy are, in point of rank and power, raised above the 
proper level, the other part are sunk below it. This 
follows of course. And it is a plain matter of fact, that 
the order of things in the Episcopal Church thrusts the 
inferior clergy down from their proper station, deprives 
them of a part of their just rights, and hinders them 
from performing a part of the duties incumbent upon 
all the ministers of Christ. According to the word of 
God, they are all rulers in the Church, under Christ, 
the Supreme Ruler. Their being under him is no de- 



CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 



107 



gradation, but an honor ; — no loss of rights, but a matter 
of truth and justice, yea, an unspeakable privilege. But 
for them to be subjected to an unnecessary human au- 
thority is a loss of just rights, and a hinderance to the 
performance of important duties ; and it is a degrada- 
tion. It is the right and duty of every gospel minister, 
not only to administer Baptism, but to admit persons to 
the communion of the church and to the participation 
of the Lord's Supper. And if Confirmation is a Scrip- 
tural rite, and is ordinarily to precede or accompany ad- 
mission to these privileges ; then Confirmation is a part 
of the duty belonging to every minister. And to take it 
out of the hands of common Pastors, and put it into the 
hands of a Prelate, is as arbitrary and unjust, as it would 
be to put the right of baptizing exclusively into his 
hands. What is there in the business of Confirming, 
as set forth in the Book of Common Prayer," which is 
more solemn, or more important, or of more difficult 
performance, than Baptism ? And yet, in the Episcopal 
church, while a Presbyter baptizes children, and adult 
believers, he cannot Confirm them. This must be done 
by a Bishop. Why so? In the rite of Confirmation, 
persons do but recognize and renew the obligations im- 
plied in Baptism. If either is the more important, sure- 
ly it is Baptism. And any one would naturally think 
that, if either of them is to be deemed of superior im- 
portance, and, on that account, to be assigned exclusive- 
ly to the Bishop, it must be Baptism, which is plainly a 
divine institution, rather than Confirmation, which looks 
very much like a human institution. And when I com- 
pare Confirmation with the Lord's Supper, I find equal, 
if not superior reason to regard the latter as the more 



108 



LE CTURE IV. 



solemn and important. Why then is an ordinary Pastor 
who is allowed to administer the Lord's Supper, forbid- 
den to administer the rite of Confirmation? If the less 
important duty is assigned exclusively to the Bishop ; 
why not the more important? Why is it not made the 
duty of the Bishop, and of him only, to administer the 
Sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper? And 
for the same reason, why should he not do all the preach- 
ing too, as this is vastly more important and difficult, 
than the work of Confirmation ? In regard then to 
Confirmation, is there not in the Episcopal system, an 
appearance of something which is unreasonable and ar- 
bitrary, and, to common ministers, degrading? The 
same may be said in regard to the right and the duty of 
consecrating men to the office of ministers, by prayer 
and the imposition of hands ; — a transaction to which 
Presbyters are as competent as Bishops. We are now 
looking at these matters as being referred to the dis- 
cretion of Christians, and to be disposed of on the 
ground of expediency. And my position is, that, so far 
as the Episcopal system deprives Presbyters of any 
rights which naturally pertain to their office, such as 
the right of Confirming and Ordaining, and so far as it 
hinders them from the performance of any ministerial 
duties, to which they are manifestly competent ; it de- 
grades them in the public estimation, and, by an un- 
necessary and arbitrary arrangement, curtails their sal- 
utary influence and their usefulness. I shall feel myself 
justified in making these allegations, until it shall be 
shown, that the assignment of duties referred to, is 
founded on sufficient reasons, and is dictated by sound 
Judgment and discretion. Until that is done, my objec- 



CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 



109 



tion against Episcopacy, as stated above, remains in all 
its force. And every time a Bishop goes about among 
the churches, claiming and exercising the exclusive right 
of Confirming and Ordaining, I shall have the disagree- 
able impression, that he goes, not simply to advise, as- 
sist and encourage common Pastors in their holy calling, 
but to interfere W\\h some of their appropriate rights 
and duties, as ministers of Christ. The fault, however, 
is not to be charged to the Episcopal Bishop, but to the 
Episcopal system. 

It is, in my view, a serious objection against the sys- 
tem of Prelacy, that it hinders the members of the church 
from performing an important part of their duty as 
Christians. We have seen that it deprives them of all 
direct agency in the discipline of offenders. In this way, 
it tends to prevent them from feeling the interest which 
they ought to feel in the character and conduct of each 
other, and, of course, from exercising the watchful care 
over each other, which is required as a sacred duty. To 
induce men to do such a duty, and to do it faithfully, it 
is important to take away all hinderances, and to make 
them feel the force of a direct responsibility. Any sin- 
cere Christian will be likely to watch over his brethren 
for their good, and to reprove them when the case re- 
quires, and labor for their amendment, if it is understood, 
that this is a duty which properly belongs to him, anci 
that his brethren are, in an important sense, accountable 
to him. But how can we expect that individual Chris- 
tians will faithfully watch over and reprove one another, 
as required by the precepts of Scripture, and that the 
business of real superintendence and discipline will be 
faithfully accomplished, if it all devolves on a single man, 



110 



LECTURE IV . 



and that man at a distance, occupied with a multitude 
of other cares, and not likely to be sufficiently acquaint- 
ed with the persons concerned to be a suitable judge 1 
I think there ought at least to be something which fairly 
answers to trial by jury, which in Great Britain and 
America is deemed so indispensable to the security of 
individual rights, and the exercise of justice. Let every 
private member of the church be tried and judged either 
by his brethren regularly assembled as a judicial body, 
or if the brethren think best, by their representatives, 
chosen and authorized to act for them, — as is done in 
the Presbyterian church. This last is truly a Republi- 
can proceeding ; and it recognizes the principle, that it 
is the right and duty of the members of the church to 
attend to the business of discipline, although they choose 
to do it, as the members of our civil communities do, by 
or through their representatives, to whom they delegate 
the necessary power. Where the members of the church 
are possessed of intelligence and judgment, qualifying 
them to have a direct, personal agency in managing the 
discipline of the church, the Congregational plan is, in 
my opinion, preferable, and more exactly in accordance 
with the primitive practice. But still, as in civil society, 
no one can complain, if he is tried by his peers, those 
peers being chosen in a just and orderly manner ; so in 
the church, substantial and equal justice may be secur- 
ed, if the business of discipline is voluntarily committed 
by the members to a proper number of representatives , 
constituting a body in the church with definite, but de- 
legated power in the affairs of discipline. Now either 
the Congregational or Presbyterian system appears to 
me altogether preferable to the Episcopal system, accord- 



CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 



Ill 



ing to which the Bishop is entrusted with the exercise of 
a superintendence and discipline which is far too exten- 
sive for any single man, and for which no man can be 
supposed to possess the necessary knowledge and the ne- 
cessary executive ability. And, if I mistake not, all ex- 
perience will show, that wherever Prelacy prevails, that 
is, wherever the business of discipline is taken out of the 
hands of the churches, and committed to the hands of a 
single man, who is to take care of a large number of 
churches, spread over a large extent of country ; the 
duty will not and cannot be faithfully performed. The 
system in this respect is encumbered with great disad- 
vantages, and it imposes upon the Bishop an oppressive 
and impracticable duty. 



LECTURE V. 



THE LITURGY. 

My next objection to the Episcopal scheme is, that it 
imposes unscriptural and burdensome restrictions upon all 
the clergy — upon Bishops as well as Presbyters and 
Deacons, The Bible makes it the duty of ministers to 
offer up prayer in public assemblies ; but it does not pre- 
scribe the form of their prayers ; and it nowhere gives 
the right to do this to any man, or any body of men. If 
ministers are, in any good measure, qualified for their 
office, they are qualified to conduct the devotions of the 
church. And their prayers should be such as the spirit 
of piety in them suggests, and such as are suited to the 
circumstances of the congregation. And why should 
they not be trusted with this part of the service of the 
Sanctuary, as well as with other parts? Why should 
they be absolutely required to pray in one particular 
form, and forbidden to vary one iota from it ? Who on 
earth has a right to tell the ministers of Christ the very 
thoughts they shall think, and the very words they shall 
speak in their supplications and confessions and thanks- 
givings to God on every occasion ? Were it not for the 
influence of custom, what gospel minister at the present 
day would yield this right to any one ? Is not a w^ell 
qualified minister, — is not a Bishop — is not an Archbish- 
8 



114 



LECTURE V. 



op as able to make a prayer, as others are to make it for 
him, — and others who lived hundreds of years ago, in 
times of comparative ignorance ? Bishops are, it is said, 
successors of the Apostles, and stand up in their place. 
And did the Apostles read written forms of prayer ? — It 
is an unwarrantable and hurtful restriction. And I can- 
not but think, that many worthy ministers in the Episco- 
pal church feel it to be so. It deprives them of the lib- 
erty wherewith Christ has made them free. Suppose an 
Episcopal Priest or Bishop, in accordance with the feel- 
ings of all others, wishes to make some uncommon event, 
not mentioned in the Liturgy, a particular subject of 
public prayer. He must not do it. His prayer is in his 
Book, and he must read it just as it is, without addition 
or alteration, — how much soever he may desire to pray, 
and how much soever others may desire that he w^ould 
pray, in a different manner. Again. Suppose a scene 
occurs, such as has frequently occurred, and such as we 
hope will occur still more frequently;- — suppose that he 
who is ministering in the Sanctuary, sees evident signs 
of awakened and solemn attention, deep anxiety, and 
tenderness of heart through the assembly before him, and 
he well knows that many 'are ready to ask, what shall I 
do to be saved, and his own heart is full of love and pity 
for lost souls, and strong desires for their salvation, and 
he longs to cry to God in their behalf in a manner adapt- 
ed to their state, and to his own devout emotions. What 
shall he do ? Why, he can only read a prayer, written 
many hundreds of years ago, — a prayer very good for 
some other occasions, but not for this. Now, were I an 
Episcopal minister, I do not say, were I a Bishop, but 
were I a minister of the lowest rank, and found myself 



THE LITURGY. 



115 



in such circumstances, I would instantly forget that I 
was under authority to any one, but to my Lord and Sa- 
viour, Jesus Christ, — I would cast off my bondage, and 
would pour out the fulness of my heart in prayer to God, 
just as ministers of other denominations do. 

Reading public prayers from a Book may, I admit, be 
advisable and useful, when ministers have but little cul- 
tivation of mind and are very imperfectly prepared for 
their office. But if ministers are possessed of the requi- 
site qualifications, no human being has a rightful author- 
ity to dictate to them how they shall pray ; nor can they 
rightfully submit to such dictation, from whomsoever it 
may come. I know not how it is in the Episcopal church 
in this country ; but in the church of England, when 
any new and remarkable event takes place, suitable to 
be mentioned in public prayer ; it is said, that all the 
clergy, amounting to so many thousands, and all the 
Bishops too, are silent, not presuming to utter a word on 
the occasion, till the Archbishop, — perhaps in compli- 
ance with the petition of the Bishops and clergy under 
him, — composes and publishes a prayer for them to read. 
Now, T ask, what Apostle, with all his authority and in- 
spiration, ever undertook anything like this ? It is a 
palpable innovation upon Apostolical and Primitive prac- 
tice ; — a gross infringement of the liberty and the duty 
of the Ambassadors of Christ. — Leading-strings for chil- 
dren, not for men. — A prayer-book for unqualified, ig- 
norant ministers, not for ministers of cultivated minds, 
especially those of superior gifts. 

Dr. Dick, in his Lectures on Theology, objects to 
forms of prayer on the ground that they are not warrant- 
ed by Scripture, nor even sanctioned by the example of 



116 



LECTURE V. 



the Primitive Church. He thinks it more consonant to 
common sense, as well as to religion, that a Christian 
should be allowed to express the feelings and desires 
which spontaneously arise in his own mind, than that he 
should be required to conform to a standard prepared by 
another. Would it not be preposterous,'^ he says, " to 
confine a child to a collection of written requests, from 
which he was never to deviate in his addresses to his fa- 
ther He further objects to forms, because they can- 
not be adapted to the ever varying circumstances of 
God's people, and must therefore prove a painful and in- 
jurious restraint upon the liberty of the spirit which the 
word of God encourages us to exercise. — He thinks the 
Liturgy of the Episcopal church is chargeable with un- 
necessarily repeating the same petitions, and with joining 
together those which have no kind of connection. A 
serious objection," he says, is the shortness of the pray- 
ers. The longest are ended almost before you have time 
to bring your mind into a proper frame for joining in it ; 
and some of them, consisting of a single sentence, are 
finished almost as soon as they are begun. Besides the 
constant interruption which is thus given to devotional 
feelings, there is a want of dignity and of sense in a col- 
lection of what may be called shreds or fragments of 
prayers. The Lord's Prayer is sometimes introduced 
where no person can perceive any reason for using it, 
and is brought forward so often in the course of the same 
service, as to have the appearance of vain repetition." 

As I have now undertaken to inquire a little into the 
reason of things, I wouJd ask why the Episcopal church, 
which prescribes praters for ministers, does not also 
prescribe their sermons ? It may be said, that this was 



THE LITURGY. 



117 



actually done ; that two volumes of Homilies, i. e. Ser- 
mons, were early written and published, and ordered to 
be read by the clergy in the Church ; sermons suited to 
the circumstances and wants of the people. I suppose 
however that even then, those ministers who were com- 
petent to write edifying discourses, had liberty to do it.. 
This was all well. And those who were competent to 
make edifying pr a 7/ ers, should have had liberty to do this 
also. But why is not the use of Homilies continued, as 
much as the use of written prayers? You may say, that 
ministers now are well educated, and are qualified to 
make their own sermons. This I admit. And then the 
question returns, are they not also qualified to make 
their own prayers ? If it is safe and proper to trust min- 
isters, in the exercise of their own cultivated faculties, to 
write and deliver, and even to preach extemporaneously, 
sermons sufficient to cover the whole ground of Christian 
doctrine and duty ; why is it not safe and proper to trust 
them, in the exercise of their own intelligence and piety, 
to offer up extemporaneous or premeditated prayers? 
Who can see any reason for the difference ? If the Epis- 
copal church prescribes the whole course of public devo- 
tions, it should, to be consistent, prescribe the whole 
course of public instructions, and Bishops, as well as the 
inferior clergy, should use the Book of Homilies, as they 
now use the Book of common prayer. If it is said, that 
the old Homilies, though very edifying and acceptable 
when they were composed, are in many respects unfit to 
be delivered to a modern assembly, — (which is verily the 
case ;) then why do not the Bishops, or one of them con- 
stituted an Archbishop, write and publish new Homilies, 



118 



LE CTURE V. 



extending over the whole system of doctrinal and practi- 
cal religion ? 

I find that the Episcopal church " suspends the order 
for the reading of the Homilies in churches, until a re- 
vision of them may be conveniently made for the clear- 
ing of them from obsolete words and phrases, and from 
the local references." See note to Art. 35. Why has 
not some proper measure been taken for such a revision ? 
Why leave the clergy so long to preach without the help 
of Homilies ? And if the reading of Homilies is sus- 
pended, because, not being suited to the taste of Chris- 
tians of the present day, and the circumstances of the 
church, they need revision ; I should suppose the same 
would be done with the Book of common prayer. The 
reasons for this are the same in kind, though not equal 
in degree. A revision of the prayers is demanded for 

clearing them of obsolete words and phrases,'' as is 
said in the other case. They have already cleared them 
of " local references." Why not do more ? Why should 
the Book of common prayer, which is to be used continu- 
ally in public worship, retain obsolete words, or employ 
words in an obsolete sense ? Why especially should it 
retain anything which, by common consent, is laid aside 
as unsuitable ? I refer now to what is called the Church- 
ing of Women which has gone into general disuse. 
Mothers at this day cannot be expected to go through the 
service, as prescribed in the Prayer Book. It may be said, 
that whatever may be the language of the Rubric, the 
service is to be referred to the discretion of the minister, 
and to the option of women. But so it is, that their op- 
tion is always against the service. And so it is likely to 
be ; and so I think it ought to be. And retaining it in the 



THE LITURGY. 



119 



Prayer Book answers no purpose but to show what was 
practised in former times, but is now regarded both by 
the Clergy and Laity, as inconsistent, not indeed with 
piety, nor with what was decency in other states of soci- 
ety, but with modern delicacy. Why then I ask, is an 
obsolete ceremony still prescribed, which is never to be 
observed 1 

And now, as I have touched upon the Liturgy, I must 
go a little farther. As to the general current of thought 
and sentiment contained in the Book of Common Prayer, 
— I w^ould treat it with the sincerest veneration, not be- 
cause the form in which it is presented is derived from 
the Fathers of the church of England, or from the Chris- 
tian Fathers in the early ages of the church ; but be- 
cause it is thoroughly scriptural, and suited to promote 
true, evangelical piety. And I rejoice in the thought, 
that it has, through the blessing of God, been the means 
of aiding the devotions of an innumerable multitude of 
believers, and training them up for the worship of heaven. 
And I am confident that ministers and Christians of all 
denominations may be benefited by a familiar acquain- 
tance with it. But as I have said before, — I feel myself 
at liberty to call in question, not what is from God, but 
whatever is of human origin. And considering the ob- 
ject of these Lectures, I should be chargeable with a 
palpable omission, if I should neglect to state the objec- 
tions which lie in my mind not only against the constant 
and exclusive use of any prescribed forms of prayer^ 
however excellent, but against what seems to me faulty 
in the structure of the Liturgy itself, as now used in 
the Episcopal Church. 

It is, in my view, a serious objection to the Episcopal 



120 



LECTURE V. 



system, that it does, to so great an extent, impose upon 
ministers and people an unvarying, and what appears to 
me an irksome uniformity in the public service. This 
I have already touched upon. Man is so constituted, 
that he craves variety ; and you cannot deprive him of 
it, and confine him, without any obvious reason, to one 
invariable course, even in religious duties, without doing 
violence to the principles of his intellectual and moral 
nature. Look now at the manner prescribed in the 
Liturgy, of introducing public worship. At the com- 
mencement of every morning and every evening service, 
the minister must say : " Dearly beloved brethren, the 
Scripture moveth us in sundry places to acknowledge 
and confess our manifold sins and wickedness, etc." 
Now this introductory address, which is of some length, 
is all true and important ; and, whenever a congregation 
need to be informed, that confession of sin is required 
by the word of God, it is proper and useful. But after 
the people have been frequently and fully instructed on 
this point, why take up their time with a constant and 
needless repetition, which is almost sure to become a 
dull formality? Instead of reiterating continually, and 
in the same words, that the Scripture moveth us to Con- 
fession, why not proceed at once to perform the duty 1 
When Christians meet together for the express purpose 
of prayer, there is surely no occasion for them to be al- 
ways and invariably told before they engage in prayer, 
that the Scripture moveth them to pray. They all un- 
derstand this. And if you say, it is proper for them to 
be continually reminded of it, you might just as well say, 
that the people should be continually reminded of their 
duty to receive instruction ; and that when we come to 



THE LITURGY. 



121 



the sermon, it is proper for us always to repeat exactly 
the same form before we begin, and say, that "the Scrip- 
ture in sundry places moveth us to" this service, that is, 
ministers to preach, and the people to hear. And I 
cannot but think that, although ministers quietly sub- 
mit to use this invariable introductory address out of 
respect to Episcopal authority, they would after all, in 
their own honest feelings, choose to be left at liberty to 
introduce the service either in this way or in some other, 
as their own good taste and judgment should dictate. 

See too how remarkably particular and minute are 
the directions given to ministers of all degrees in regard 
to the manner of conducting the public service, — direct- 
ing them just what they shall say before they begin and 
after they close the reading of the lesson. The Rubric 
lays down this rule, to be always observed; — "That be- 
fore every Lesson, the minister shall say. Here beginneth 
such a chapter, or verse of such a chapter, of such a 
Book : and after every Lesson, Here endeth the first, or 
the second Lesson." It is indeed proper that the min- 
ister should inform the Congregation what portion of 
Scripture is to be read, as ministers of all denominations 
are accustomed to do. But why is it necessary to pre- 
scribe the particular manner, in which this information 
shall be given? Why especially is it always necessary 
to say to the Congregation, w^ho have the Lesson in the 
Prayer Book right before them, — " Here endeth the first, 
or the second Lesson ?" Why any more necessary than 
to say at the close of every prayer that is read, Here 
endeth the prayer ? In the Episcopal service, the whole 
Congregation, several times, repeat the Lord's prayer 
with the minister, and they all join in saying other 



122 



LECTURE V. 



prayers after the minister, as little children say prayers 
or hymns after their parents. Now everything of this 
kind appears to me to be a real hinderance to devotion, 
and a disorder and confusion quite inconsistent vi^ith the 
solemnity and stillness which ought to pervade a religious 
assembly. And it seems to me, if Paul were here, he 
would reprove it, — as he reproved the confusion in the 
Corinthian church which was occasioned by several per- 
sons speaking together. What I have now noticed, and 
also the very frequent changes of posture in the Assembly, 
must, I think, appear strange and unbecoming to any 
one, who has not been reconciled to them by long use. 

The order of services in the Episcopal Church, which 
extends through the whole year, is exceedingly particu- 
lar. There is a special service for the first, second, 
third and fourth Sundays in Advent, i. e. the four 
Sundays before Christmas; then for Christmas, and the 
first Sunday after Christmas; then for the Circumci- 
sion of Christ; then for the Epiphany, or manifestation 
of Christ to the Gentiles; then for the first, second, 
third, fourth, fifth and sixth Sundays after Epiphany; 
then for Septuagesima, or the third Sunday before 
Lent, then for the second, and the first Sunday before 
Lent; then for each Sunday during the forty days of 
Fasting in Lent; then for Good Friday, — Easter, — and 
the five Sundays after Easter ; then the Ascension day ; 
then Whitsunday, or Pentecost ; then Trinity Sunday, 
and each of the twenty-five Sundays after Trinity ; then 
St. Andrew's day, St. Thomas's day, etc. then All Saints 
day. — The arrangement for every year is the same. — 
Now my curiosity leads me to inquire, what is the rea- 



THE LITURGY. 



123 



son of all this? Why was such a particular and uniform 
arrangement made? Neither Christ nor the Apostles 
give any instructions expressly or impliedly favorable to 
it. And if it is considered in the light of expediency, 
I inquire, whether imposing one and the same course 
for each and every year tends to spiritual improvement, 
and whether it has resulted in intellectual and moral 
attainments above those which have been found under 
other forms of Public Worship. 

I have one more question, namely ; whether the above 
mentioned assignment of particular services to each 
Sunday is founded on any obvious reasons, and whether 
the particular services assigned to each Sunday are in 
reality any better adapted to that Sunday, than to some 
other ; or if it is so in some cases, whether it is so gen- 
erally. For example ; is the short prayer provided for 
the sixteenth or seventeenth Sunday after Trinity, any 
more adapted to that Sunday, than to the eighteenth or 
nineteenth. The particular prayer for the seventeenth 
is this — the whole prayer consisting of one sentence : 

Lord, we pray thee, that thy grace may always prevent 
and follow us, and make us continually to be given to 
all good works, through Jesus Christ." Now is there 
any reason for assigning this prayer to the seventeenth 
rather than to the eighteenth, for which the following 
prayer is provided ; Lord, we beseech thee, grant thy 
people grace to withstand the temptations of the world, 
the flesh, and the Devil, and with pure hearts and minds 
to follow thee, the only God, through Jesus Christ." No 
reason appears, why these prayers should not be exchang- 
ed the one for the other. The same is true in a majority 
of cases. While then the service provided for some occa- 



124 



LECTURE V. 



sions has an evident and happy adaptedness to those oc- 
casions; we must regard the arrangement in other cases 
as altogether arbitrary. Now, even if it is expedient to 
require ministers and churches to conform to a particular 
arrangement of public services when there is an obvious 
reason for the arrangement ; is it expedient, when there 
is no reason ? 

But I must now state a more serious objection against 
the Liturgy, namely, that, although in general it abounds 
in scriptural and devout sentiments, it contains some 
passages which are highly exceptionable. And no one 
will say, that its general excellence can justify its errors. 
The Episcopal church has the power to make alterations 
in the Liturgy. They have exercised this power, and 
have actually made important alterations. And there is 
nothing to prevent them from making more, if they judge 
best. Must we not then consider whatever is found in 
the Liturgy, to be a true expression of the belief of the 
Protestant Episcopal church in America, — not the be- 
lief of every individual, but of the church as a whole? 

The particular fault to which I now object, is the false 
doctrine contained in the Baptismal service, — which as- 
serts the regeneration of all who are baptized. After the 
child is baptized, the minister says ; " Seeing now that 
this child is regenerate, and grafted into the body of 
Christ, let us give thanks to Almighty God for these be- 
nefits." Then follows the Thanksgiving. — " We give 
the hearty thanks, most merciful Father, that it hath 
pleased thee to regenerate this infant ivith thy Holy 
Spirit J to receive him for thine own child by adoption^ 
and to ingraft him into thy holy churchJ' Now if it 
were a fact, that every baptized child is regenerated by 



THE LITURGY. 



125 



the Holy Spirit and made God's own child by adoption, 
it would be a plain duty to acknowledge it with grati- 
tude. But there is no evidence of the fact, either from 
Scripture, observation, or experience. And when those 
Episcopal ministers, (and there are many such,) who cor- 
dially receive the teachings of Holy Writ as to the native 
corruption of man and the necessity of a spiritual regen- 
eration, go through with the Baptismal service, and say, 
that the baptized child is regenerated by the Holy Spi- 
rit ; do they really believe what the words naturally ex- 
'press? It is evident they do not. For when baptized 
children come to years of understanding, they do not tell 
them that they have already been born again of the di- 
vine Spirit, but they urge upon them, just as all evange- 
lical ministers do, the important doctrine, that they must 
experience this spiritual renovation in order to prepare 
them for heaven, and that it is unsafe to place any reli- 
ance upon the circumstance of their having been bap- 
tized. And yet those ministers are obliged to say, in so 
many words, that the baptized child is regenerated by 
the Holy Spirit, and received as God's own child by 
adoption, and incorporated into God's lioly church ; — 
language which expresses the idea of a real, saving 
change both of character and state, as clearly and strong- 
ly, as any language can do it. It seems to me, that such 
ministers must regret the necessity of saying this : be- 
cause the language does plainly express a sentiment 
which is not theirs; and they must, I think, have found 
by experience, that the practice of using words and sen- 
tences in this manner cannot, without some painful strug- 
gles, be made to sit quietly upon an enlightened and up- 
right mind. Those, who hold the doctrine of Baptismal 



126 



LECTURE V. 



regeneration, according to the plain, literal meaning of 
the language employed in the service, believe that re- 
generating grace, or more exactly, regeneration hy the 
Holy Spirit, that is, spiritual regeneration, or the new 
hirth, is conveyed to the child, through the efficacy of 
Baptism. Just look. The moment before Baptism the 
child is unregenerate ; the moment after, he is regene- 
rate. Accordingly it is during the few moments occu- 
pied in Baptism, that the child is regenerated by the 
Holy Spirit, and received as God's own child by adop- 
tion, and incorporated into God's holy church." Here, 
in this wonderful transaction, a great and glorious change 
is accomplished, — the very change which Jesus declar- 
ed to be absolutely necessary for every human being, — 
a new birth effected by the Spirit of God, — a change 
from a state of sin to a state of holiness, — a change 
from being a child of wrath to being an adopted child 
of God. But if such a momentous and instantaneous 
change as this is really produced by Baptism, or dur- 
ing the time of Baptism ; it is certainly reasonable to 
expect some manifestations or evidences of it. And if 
no such evidences appear, I should suppose that those, 
who believe that such a change takes place in Baptism, 
would be grievously disappointed, and would hardly 
know what to think of it. Now do any such evidences 
appear ? Does not the Baptized child exhibit the same 
moral qualities as children who are not Baptized? When 
he comes to years of understanding, does he not after all 
show that he needs to be regenerated by the Holy Spirit, 
as much as though he had not been regenerated by Bap- 
tism? As Baptized children grow up, do not most of 
them show, that they are not children of God by adop-' 



THE LITURGY. 



127 



tion ? And when they are awakened to consideration, and 
convinced of sin, do they not know and feel, as all other 
convinced sinners do, the inefficacy of all outward rites, 
and the necessity of regeneration by the Holy Spirit? 
And would any gospel minister tell them, that they had 
already been regenerated, and that their anxiety on that 
subject was needless 1 

Bishop Hobart says, that there is a distinction made 
in the language of the Episcopal church as well as in 
Scripture, between Regeneration and Renovation And 
he maintains that unless the baptized person is renew- 
ed by the Holy Ghost, his baptismal regeneration will 
only increase his guilt/'* It comes to this, that the bap- 
tized person is regenerated by the Holy Ghost,'' but 
not " renewed by the Holy Ghost ;" and although he is 
already regenerated by the Holy Ghost," it will profit 
him nothing, unless he is renewed by the Holy Ghost." 
Our author does not however undertake to tell us what 
the work of the Holy Spirit in regeneration really is, and 
how it differs from the work of the same Spirit in reno- 
vation. We had supposed that whatever might be the 
case as to the influence of outward rites, the work of the 
Holy Spirit is inicard, and influences the affections. 
But he holds to an important work of the Holy Spirit in 
regeneration, which does not touch the inward affec- 
tions ; although in another part of the service, the child 
is spoken of as receiving forgiveness of sin by this spi- 
ritual regeneration,^^ The Bishop maintains Baptismal 
Regeneration expressly " in this sense, that the baptized 
person is horn again, not in the affections of his soul, 
but into a new state, etc." He is regenerated or born 

* Hobart's Apology for Apostolic Order, p. 230. 2cl. ed. 



128 



LECTURE V. 



again," and that too hy the Holy Spirit, but is not re- 
generated " in the affections of his soul." These remain 
as they were. And the new state!^ into which he is 
brought, when in Baptism he is regenerated by the Ho- 
ly Spirit, is not a new spiritual state, — it does not per- 
tain to his inward affections ; and of course it must be a 
new outward state. The Bishop says, the baptized per- 
son is born again into a new state, in which he receives 
conditionally a title to the blessings of the gospel cove- 
nant." " Receives conditionally J ^ But the Baptismal 
service says nothing like this. It does not hint at any- 
thing conditional. It declares directly and positively, 
that the baptized child is regenerated hy the Holy Spi- 
rit, and received as God^s own child by adoption, and 
incorporated into God's holy church." Are not these 
the blessings of the Gospel covenant ? The Episcopal 
minister renders thanks to God that all these blessings 
are actually bestowed upon the baptized child. And he 
does the same in regard to the baptized adult ; and the 
service for adults, in several parts, plainly implies, that 
the baptized person, before Baptism, is unregenerate, 
and that in or by the act of Baptism, he is born again 
not only of water, but also of the Spirit. The minister 
does not say, as we should suppose he would according 
to the Bishop's explanation of the matter ; " we yield 
thee hearty thanks, most merciful Father, that it hath 
pleased thee conditionally to give to this child a title to 
be regenerated by the Holy Spirit, and to be received as 
thine own child by adoption, and to be incorporated into 
thy holy church." He does not thus thank God for giving 
the child a conditional title to these gospel blessings ; 
but he thanks God that he has alreadv, in the rite of 



THE LITURGY. 



129 



Baptism, actually bestowed them. Accordingly, I find 
no small difficulty in making the Bishop's explanation of 
the Baptismal service, agree with the language of the 
service. The one says, a conditional title to gospel 
blessings" is received in Baptism ; the other says, the 
blessings themselves are received. And the Church 
Catechism also says, that the persons baptized, ''^ heing 
by nature born in sin, and children of wrath, are here- 
by," (i. e. by Baptism) made the children ol grace." 

It would be gratifying to my feelings to know precisely 
what is meant in the above quotation by the baptized 
person receiving conditionally a title to the blessings of 
the Gospel Covenant." The gift of the Holy Spirit to 
renew and sanctify the heart is mentioned in the Scrip- 
tures as one of the special blessings of the Gospel Cove- 
enant. Another of these blessings is set forth in that 
gracious promise of God, I will be your God, and ye 
shall be my sons and daughters." In this is included all 
good. Such are the principal blessings of the New Cov- 
enant. The baptized child receives a conditional title 
to these blessings. A conditional title, is a title depend- 
ing on tJie fulfilment of certain conditions. What are 
the conditions in this case ? The conditions cannot be 
the application of water to the child and solemnly pro- 
nouncing over him by the minister the name of the F 
ther and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost; for it is in or 
by this Baptismal service, that he receives the condition- 
al title, — the conditions of the title being still to he ful- 
filled. What then are the conditions ? And by whom 
are they to be performed ? It appears from the Baptis- 
mal service, that the conditions are to be performed for 
a time, by the Sponsors, that is, the parents or other per- 



130 



LECTURE V. 



sons, who present the child for Baptism, and enter into 
solemn engagements for him and in his name. The 
minister, after referring to the promise of Christ, says to 
the Sponsors : This infant must also — for his part, 
promise hy you that are his sureties (until he come of 
age to take it upon himself,) that he will renounce the 
Devil and all his works, and constantly believe God's 
holy word, and obediently keep his commandments." 
He then puts the particular questions to each one of the 
sureties and receives the answers. Dost thou, in the 
name of this child, renounce the Devil and all his works, 
the vain pomp and glory of the world, with all covetous 
desires of the same, and all sinful desires of the flesh — 
Answer. I renounce them all ; and wall endeavour by 
God's help, not to follow^ them — — Dost thou be- 
lieve all the articles of the Christian faith, as contained 
in the Apostles' creed?" Ans. I do." Wilt thou 
be baptized into this faith ?" Ans. That is my de- 
sire." Wilt thou then obediently keep all God's com- 
mandments, and walk in them all the days of thy life?" 
Ans. I will, by God's help." — In these promises, the 
Sureties, severally, personate the infant ; that is, they 
speak in his name, and enter into engagements for him. 
Now there are some things in this transaction which a 
plain Puritan finds it rather hard to understand. Are 
the sureties responsible for the fulfilment of the promises 
they make? Or, as they speak in the name of the child, 
does the responsibility rest on Mm 7 It seems from the 
transaction, that they become specially responsible, till 
the child comes of age. If so, then in what way are they 
to fulfil their promises, that is, in what way is each of 
them to renounce the Devil and his works, and to be- 



THE LITURGY. 



131 



lieve and obey God's word for the child during his in- 
fancy 1 Is the faith and obedience to be exercised by 
the Sureties, or by the child ? If the Sureties do them- 
selves, in the exercise of their own faculties, truly believe 
and obey, is that a fulfilment of the promise they make 
in the name of the child ? If not, then what more shall 
they do, seeing they cannot so identify themselves with 
the mind of the child, that their act in believing and 
obeying shall become his oion personal act ? But if, 
whatever may seem to be implied in the promise, the 
Sponsors are not really responsible for the child's faith 
and obedience during his infancy, and if, as is plainly 
signified, the child is not responsible, until he grows up ; 
then where does the responsibility lie, — the responsibili- 
ty for the fulfilment, during the child's infancy, of the 
promise made by the Sureties ? After the child is of 
sufficient age, he of course takes the responsibility upon 
himself. 

If the real import of the promise which the Sponsors 
make, is meant to be this, — that they will take care, as 
far as possible, that the child receive a religious educa- 
tion ; that he be restrained from vice, and be brought 
up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord ; then why 
should not the language of the promise be such as clear- 
ly to convey this meaning? Why should a transaction 
made up of mysteries, — an cBnigma (Bnigmatorum, more 
puzzling than Sampson's riddle, be used to set forth or 
rather to cover p so plain a matter ? — an enigma too, 
the explanation of which is another and a still darker 
enigma. 

But to return. So far as the Sponsors are concerned, 
the condition of the child's title to gospel blessings must 



132 



LECTURE V. 



be the fulfilment of the promises they make in behalf of 
the child. And these promises you will take care to un- 
derstand as well as you can. But what are the condi- 
tions which relate to the child himself? On what con- 
ditions, to be performed by him, does his title to the 
blessings of the Gospel Covenant rest ? The Gospel it- 
self summarily represents these conditions to be, repen- 
tance toward God, and faith toward the Lord Jesus 
Christ. The child then, in Baptism, receives a title to 
the blessings of the Gospel Covenant, on condition that, 
in due time, he shall repent and believe. But here is 
another difficulty. For are not these very blessings of- 
fered to all, whether baptized or not, on these same con- 
ditions ? And does not every faithful minister, whether 
Episcopal or not, declare to all men, without reference 
to the circumstance of their having been baptized or not, 
that all spiritual blessings will be theirs, if they will re- 
pent, and believe in Christ ? If then this conditional 
title is common to all who live under the gospel dispen- 
sation ; how is it received in Baptism 1 

I have only a word more. Episcopalians have, in several 
instances in their Liturgy, provided a second form of the 
service, to be used by any who shall prefer it to the first. 
This is the case in the Ordination service. The Bishop 
is to repeat the first form, or another which follows it. 
The same choice between two modes of proceeding is 
provided as to the sign of the cross in Baptism, and as 
to the mode of applying the water, and as to repeating a 
part of the Apostles' Creed. Now such a provision ap- 
pears to me much more important in this case, than in 
any of the other cases referred to. And I have often been 
inclined to ask, why Episcopalians have not, in this case 



THE LITURGY. 



133 



as in the others, exercised their authority and their cha- 
rity, and provided a second form of the Baptismal ser- 
vice, in which the doctrine of regeneration hy the Holy 
Spirit in Baptism^ should be omitted, so that ministers 
of different views might be freed from a heavy burden, 
and be at liberty to act according to their honest convic- 
tions. 

My next allegation against the Liturgy is, that it pre- 
sents a low and unscriptural standard of the Christian 
character. Those doubtless are regarded as true believ- 
ers and heirs of eternal life, who are confirmed by the 
Bishop, and received to the communion of the Supper, 
and who are spoken of as Christians in the Funeral Ser- 
vice. As to the last, although the Liturgy has been im- 
proved by the Protestant Episcopal church in America, 
it is still plainly implied in the whole service, that the 
person deceased, whether pious or not, was a Christian, 
and died in the Lord. To any one who reads or hears the 
service, this is perfectly manifest. And there is no way 
to avoid this conclusion, but by an unnatural and forced 
explanation, or rather an evasion, of the import of the 
language. The service is exceedingly solemn and im- 
pressive, and is remarkably appropriate to the funeral of 
a devout Christian. But if used at the burial of a per- 
son who was evidently destitute of the Christian charac- 
ter, as it so frequently is ; it conveys the false and dan- 
gerous sentiment, that a life of ungodliness is not incom- 
patible with a title to heaven ; and in this way it directly 
tends to confirm the irreligious in their irreligious life. 
And here I cannot but notice the manifest inconsisten- 
cy, not to say absurdity, of attempting to frame a single 



134 



LECTURE V. 



service, which shall be suited to the burial of the most 
eminent servant of Christ, and at the same time suited 
to the burial of the worldly and profane. The service is 
indeed " not to be used for any unbaptized adults, or 
any who die excommunicate, or yvho have laid violent 
hands upon themselves." These are the only exceptions. 
It may be used for baptized inebriates, or infidels. There 
are many persons, who, for some cause, have not been 
baptized, who yet have exhibited, in life and in death, 
the character of exemplary Christians. To these. Chris- 
tian burial is, according to the Rubric, to be denied. 

An unscriptural standard of Christian character is also 
held forth in the Order of Confirmation.'' In the first 
place, the minister says to the Sureties for the baptized 
child : Ye are to take care that this child be brought 
to the Bishop to be confirmed by him, as soon as he can 
say the Creed, the Lord^s Prayer, and the ten command- 
ments, and is suffxiently instructed in the other parts of 
the Church Catechism set for that ptirpose J^ The same 
qualifications are mentioned at the beginning of the 
Order of Confirmation." Confirmation is limited to 
such as can say the Creed, the Lord's Prayer, and the 
ten commandments, and can also answer to such other 
questions as in the Short Catechism are contained." 
These are the qualifications required in order to Confir- 
mation, and, as I suppose, in order to communion with 
the church in the Lord's Supper. I am happy to say, 
there are Bishops who go far above this low standard, 
and, with a laudable zeal and fidelity, insist upon much 
more than is required in the articles relating to Confirma- 
tion, that is, a mere ability to say the Creed, the Lord's 
Prayer, the ten commandments, and the Church Cate- 



LITURGY 



CEREMONIALS. 



135 



chism ;" and who will not confirm and receive to the 
Communion of the Supper any persons w^ho do not give 
some satisfactory evidence of real piety. And I cannot 
but think that such Bishops are fully aware of the above- 
mentioned deficiency in the Liturgy, and regret that 
the Order of Confirmation" does not hold up to public 
view a higher and more Scriptural standard of Christian 
character. They may indeed do something tow^ards sup- 
plying the deficiency by a reference to other parts of the 
Liturgy, and to the Homilies perhaps. But a manifest 
deficiency it is ; and it comes continually, with all its 
deceptive influence, before the minds of those w^ho at- 
tend the public service of Confirmation in the Episcopal 
church. 

It is, with me, a grave objection to the Episcopal 
Church, that it retains and sanctions so many of the 
additions wJiicJi were made to the simple institutions of 
the gospel by the superstition of the Christian Fathers 
and the church of Rome* The corruption of Christiani- 
ty by human inventions began even in the time of the 
Apostles. And these inventions, these additions to the 
divine institutions, whether recommended hy their novelty, 
or rendered venerable by their antiquity, the Apostles 
repeatedly and severely condemned. And they foretold, 
that still greater corruptions would, by the same means, 
be brought into the church after their decease. In the 
primitive ages, superstition developed itself continually 
by new inventions, which w^ere intended to impress the 
popular mind in favor of religion, and to give increased 
influence to its holy doctrines and laws. The Christian 
Fathers, during the three or four centuries after Christ, 
laid the foundation of the church of Rome. That church, 



136 



LECTURE V. 



during the period of its greatest power and corruption, 
constantly appealed to the Fathers ; and the appeal was 
not in vain. If the Fathers during the first four or five 
•centuries are allowed to possess decisive authority in 
Tegard to opinions, rites and ceremonies ; the peculiari- 
ties of the Romish church can, for the most part, be 
vindicated and sustained. Many of the best writers in 
the church of England, and in the Protestant Episcopal 
church in America, disclaim the authority of the Fa- 
thers, and hold to the Scriptures as the sufficient and 
only rule of faith and practice. And yet Episcopalians 
at this day retain a great proportion of the rites, and 
ceremonies of Popery ; — not so much, I suppose, be- 
cause they belonged to Popery, as because they have so 
long been practised in their own church. Some in- 
deed consider it as a conclusive argument in their de- 
fence, that they were in use during the first ages of 
Christianity. A late respectable writer in favor of Pre- 
lacy says, that the distinguishing characteristic of the 
Protestant Episcopal church is, the deference it pays to 
the Primitive Church ; that it is the principle constantly 
maintained by that Church, that whatever is first is true, 
and whatever is later is falseJ^ On this ground, (which 
has already been examined,) many Episcopalians con- 
tend for those various ceremonial observances, which 
have been added to the simplicity of the gospel. 

Now I do not admit that ancient Fathers had any 
more authority to make additions to the divine institu- 
tions, than modern Fathers. Why should we pay def- 
erence to uninspired men in the third and fourth centu- 
ries, more than to those in the seventeenth and eigh- 
teenth centuries ; — or, to the Fathers of the Episcopal 



LITURGY 



CEREMONIALS. 



137 



Church in England, more than to the Fathers of the 
Presbyterian church in ScotLind, or to the Fathers of 
the Puritan church in New England ? The opinion and 
practice of uninspired men cannot bind us. We are 
Protestants. — And it seems to me, that Episcopalians, 
professing as they do to be Protestants, act inconsistent- 
ly with their profession in paying so much regard to an- 
tiquity, and especially in retaining so many of the pecu- 
liar forms and observances of the Romish church. And 
I think too, that the Episcopal church is inconsistent 
with itself, in that it adopts some of the ancient obser- 
vances, while it rejects others. The holy days kept in 
honor of the Trinity, of Angels, of the birth and circum- 
cision of Christ, of the Virgin Mary, of the Apostles, 
of several particular Martyrs and Christian Fathers, etc. 
were all at first ecclesiastical innovations ; but they be- 
came settled usages in the Ancient church. The foun- 
ders of the Protestant Episcopal church, by taking some 
of these, and omitting others, showed that they had no 
implicit confidence in antiquity, and that they claimed 
the right of judging and acting for themselves. When 
they pleased, they adopted an observance which originat- 
ed in the bosom of Popery in the fourteenth century, and 
rejected one which was generally observed in the third 
century. Now are not those who profess such deference 
to ecclesiastical antiquity, while after all they are not gov- 
erned by it, chargeable with some inconsistency? Does 
their deference really amount to any more than this, that 
they will follow the Ancients or not, as they judge best? 
If this is all, then we agree with them. If they profess 
more than this, their practice falls short of their profes- 
sion. If then modern Episcopalians charge us with the 



138 



LECTURE V. 



want of a due veneration for antiquity, because we reject 
most of the ancient ceremonies which they adopt; the 
same charge, substantially lies against them, because 
they take upon them to reject so many of the ancient 
ceremonies. The ancient Fathers in administering Bap- 
tism, in the fourth century, immersed the person three 
times ^ naked, and then made the sign of the cross on his 
forehead, and anointed him with holy oil. But Episcopa- 
lians reject the trine immersion, and the ceremony of 
nakedness, and the anointing, and do not commonly use 
immersion. I do not blame them for all this. But where 
is the deference they profess to the ancient church, 
when they reject the greater part of the ceremonies 
which were anciently used in Baptism ? 

The Episcopal church have, if I am rightly informed, 
about twenty-eight Festivals, and about one hundred 
Fasts; — that is, one hundred and twenty-eight holy-days, 
in addition to the Lord's day; — taken either directly 
from the Romish church, — for instance, the Festival in 
honor of the Trinity, which Bishop Hobart says is com- 
paratively of modern date, originating as it did in the 
fourteenth century, — or from what they call the Primi- 
tive church ; and all on the ground of their antiquity. 
But the Romish church, and what is called the Primitive 
church, had many more Festivals and Fasts. If then 
the Founders of the Episcopal church in England and 
America were governed by a respect for antiquity, why 
did they not take the whole list of the holy-days of an- 
tiquity, as well as a part? And if they are at liberty to 
reject more or fewer of the holy-days of antiquity, as they 
judge best ; on the same principle, we are at liberty to 
reject them all, if we judge best. If ancient usage has 



LITURGY CEREMONIALS. 139 

authority over us, it has authority throughout. But if 
we renounce the authority of what is commonly called 
ancient and primitive usage, we are thrown back, as we 
should be, upon the authority of what is more Ancient 
and Primitive, that is, the word of God, 

These multiplied outward observances, every one must 
see, are a departure from the Christian Scriptures. 
Neither Christ nor the Apostles appointed any particu- 
lar days to be kept as sacred by the church, except the 
Lord's day. On the contrary, the Apostle Paul express- 
ly and pointedly discountenanced all such observances. 
In the way of severe rebuke, he said to the Galatians ; 

Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years.'' 
And it was in view of these superstitions, that he said 
to them, — I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed 
upon you labor in vain." And he spoke of them as in 
bondage to these beggarly elements." If the same 
Apostle were here, what would he say to that branch 
of the Protestant Christian church, which has made 
about one third of the days in the year religious Festi- 
vals and Fasts ? 

These multiplied rites and observances are hurden- 
some. Although they fall far short of the observances 
in the Romish church ; still they are, in my view, car- 
ried to a great excess, and, if fully practised, would 
prove an intolerable yoke. Think of more than one 
hundred and twenty Festivals and Fasts,— one third part 
of the whole year ! Think of forty days in Lent, in 
which, t suppose, the stricter sort of Episcopalians ab- 
stain from animal food ! Who has a right to load the 
church, and the conscience of Christians, with such im- 
positions? I was born free, and I will not sell my birth- 



140 



LECTURE V. 



right. Most cheerfully will I submit to the authority of 
God. And I will show my respect and veneration for 
the Apostles, not by keeping days in their honor, which 
I know they never wished, — but by believing and obey- 
ing their instructions, which I know they did wish. But 
what is mere man, uninspired man, that we should bow 
the knee to him, — and that we should eat or not eat, 
and work or pray, at his bidding ? 

This whole business of observing days and months 
and times, which began in the Apostle's day, and for 
which he rebuked the backsliding Galatians, has an ob- 
vious tendency to corrupt Christianity , and to substitute 
external forms and ceremonies in the place of real godli- 
ness. When I look at the machinery of the Episcopal 
church in her Sunday services ; her multiplied short 
prayers, consisting often of a single sentence, and con- 
stantly interrupted by other intermingled services ; the 
frequent repetition of the Lord's prayer ; the continual 
change of posture among the worshippers, now standing, 
now sitting, now kneeling ; the confused noise of the 
whole congregation often speaking the same things to- 
gether ; the minister's singular dress, and change of 
place and attire ; — when I look at her many scores of 
Fasts and- Festivals in honor not only of God, and Christ, 
but of the mother of Christ, and each of the Apostles of 
Christ, — in honor of the slaughtered infants of Bethle- 
hem, — in honor of all saints, — and in honor of Saint Mi- 
chael and all angels ; — at her crosses, and her pictures, 
and the magnificence of her Cathedrals ; — at her pro- 
tracted meetings for forty days in Lent, and for many 
days at other times ; when, accustomed as I am to the 
simplicity of Puritan worship, I look at all this solemn 



LITURGY CEREMONIALS. 



141 



machinery ; I am sometimes affected with a mixed emo- 
tion of respect and doubt and fear ; — and sometimes an 
impression, which I wish to avoid, is made on my mind, 
— an impression too similar to what I have, when I look 
at the machinery employed by such men as Foote and 
Burchard and Knapp, — their protracted meetings, their 
anxious seats, their moving from one place to another, 
their multitude of short prayers, — in a word, their whole 
complicated system o{ New Measures, The abovemen- 
tioned forms and observances of the Episcopal church, 
though now fixed, and brought into a uniform order, and 
made respectable by long use, were once New Measures, 
innovations, human contrivances, intended for the very 
purpose of working upon the feelings of men ; and I fear 
they have, in some degree at least, the same alliance 
with superstition, and the same tendency to promote a 
superficial, ceremonial religion, with the machinery of 
our modern evangelists and innovators. The Episcopal 
system however differs in one essential point, namely, that 
its movements and ceremonies, superabundant as I think 
them to be, are all exactly prescribed and unalterable ; 
whereas the others are left at loose ends, to be managed 
and shifted by the ever-varying fancies and freakish hu- 
mors of conceited, obtrusive individuals, without the 
consent or even the knowledge of the great body of evan- 
gelical ministers and intelligent Christians. 

It may be said, that the ceremonials of the church are 
matters of taste, not of argument. So be it. I have my 
taste, and a right to tell what it is, — and, if it does not 
contradict anything in the Bible, I have a right to con- 
form to its suggestions. Let me say then, that I have a 
preference, too strong to be expressed, for what is plain 



142 



LECTURE V. 



and simple. The worship of the Puritans, and their 
freedom from rites and forms of human origin, instead 
of being contrary to any principle of Christianity, are 
certainly, as any one who reads the New Testament will 
perceive, conformed, in a good measure, to the pattern 
set before us by Christ and the Apostles. The perfect 
plainness and seriousness, and the divine simplicity of 
their public and social worship was what our Puritan 
Fathers endeavoured to copy, but scarcely equalled, and 
certainly never exceeded, however distant they were from 
show7 rites and ceremonies. In this respect the Puri- 
tans acted on a widely different principle from the 
church of England, — which did not even pretend to fol- 
low the simplicity of the mode of worship adopted by 
Christ and his Apostles, but conformed, and that pro- 
fessedly, to the ceremonies and observances which ori- 
ginated in the ancient church, subsequently to the days 
of inspiration. 

That you may understand more fully how I view this 
general subject, I will advert to a particular case. The 
Rubric first directs that the sign of the cross shall be 
made on the forehead of the baptized child ; but imme- 
diately after very kindly says, that if those who present 
the child shall desire it, the sign of the cross shall be 
omitted, " although the church knows no worthy cause 
of scruple concerning the same." Now you may ask, 
what worthy cause of scruple is there? What harm can 
there be in such a significant ceremony as this ? 

My reply is, that using the sign of the cross in Bap- 
tism is a human invention, an addition to the ordinance 
as appointed by Christ, and practised by the Apostles ; 
and that permitting an addition in this respect opens the 



LITURGY 



CEREMONIALS. 



143 



door for other additions without number. Why should 
you make any addition to a rite, which was complete in 
its original form 1 Do you adopt it, because it was in- 
troduced by the Christian Fathers ? But by what au- 
thority did tliey introduce it ? And if you follow them 
in this additional ceremony, you may also in the three- 
fold immersion, and the anointing, and the nudity. If 
you allow the beginning of human inventions in religion, 
the evil will be likely to grow ; and who can tell where 
it will end ? The moment in which any ceremony, in- 
vented by man, is joined to a divine institution, — that is 
the moment of danger, A second ceremony may be 
added to the first, and then a third, and a fourth ; and 
unauthorized ceremonies may be multiplied, as they 
were in the fourth and fifth centuries, and still more in 
the Romish church, till religion, instead of consisting, 
as Christ intended it should, in worshipping God in Spi- 
rit and in truth, shall become a religion of ceremonies, 
— in that respect resembling the religion of Mohamme- 
dans and Hindoos.— As to the outward sign of the cross, 
it is well to keep in mind the very just remark of a dis- 
tinguished Episcopalian ; namely, that in general, the 
less humble, believing regard has been paid to the doc- 
trine of the cross, and to the propitiatory sacrifice offer- 
ed hy the crucified Immamiel, the greater veneration has 
been rendered to the external form. This outward sign 
began to be introduced, when the simplicity of the gos- 
pel had become greatly corrupted. It was at its height 
a short time before the Reformation ; and it began to 
decline, when the doctrines of the Gospel became more 
generally understood and believed." 



LECTURE VI. 



In regard to the externals in religion, I must claim 
for myself the same right to think and speak and act, as 
I am willing to concede to others. It is, in my view, an 
unquestionable truth, that ceremonies and ritual obser- 
vances of some kind, and to some extent, are demanded 
by the principles of our nature; and that, whatever may 
be the degree of our intelligence and piety, we cannot 
be deprived of them without loss. The author of our 
religion appointed external rites to be observed perpetu- 
ally in his church on earth. And as he knew what was 
in man, and what external means were be^t adapted to 
his nature and his wants ; we ought, I think, to have 
perfect confidence in the wisdom of his appointments, 
and be satisfied with just the kind and the number of 
ceremonial observances, which he and his inspired Apos- 
tles introduced. What is there in the condition of men 
in subsequent ages, which can be supposed to render 
other rites and ceremonies more needful, than they were 
in the days of Christ and the Apostles ? It seems to me 
that the best way to manifest our reverence for the Foun- 
ders of Christianity, is, to confine ourselves exactly to 
the external institutions and rites which they establish- 
ed, not doubting that they would have varied them, or 
added more, had they judged it necessary to the welfare 
of the church. 

10 



146 



LECTURE VI. 



But if, instead of this rigid adherence to the simple 
instructions and example of Christ and the Apostles, we 
adopt the principle of the Episcopalians, as stated in the 
20th Article, namely; that *'the Church hath power to 
decree rites and ceremonies," — though not contrary 
to God's written word and as stated in their 34th Ar- 
ticle, namely ; that Every particular or national church 
hath authority to ordain, change and abolish ceremonies 
or rites of the church, ordained only by man's authority, 
so that all things be done to edifying — if we adopt this 
principle, and consider the church as having authority 
over rites and ceremonies, under the limitations mention- 
ed ; still is it not important that the church should use 
that authority aright] And if any particular church," 
for example, the Reformed church in the time of Luther, 
or the Puritan church in the time of Owen and Baxter, 
or the church of Scotland, is seriously convinced, that 
any rites or ceremonies of human origin, which have 
been customary, are not edifying, but tend to supersti- 
tion ; then, according to the very Article above quoted, 
has not that church *^ authority to — abolish" those 
" rites?" 

Under the Mosaic economy, religious rites and cere- 
monies existed in great abundance, constituting, as Pe- 
ter represented, Acts 15 : 10, an intolerable yoke^ or as 
Paul called it. Gal. 5:1, a yoke of bondage." But 
those multiplied rites, which were appointed for tempo- 
tary purposes, were superseded by the more spiritual 
dispensation of Christianity. We cannot then argue 
from the existence of any rite or ceremony under the 
former dispensation, that it should be kept up under the 
latter. This argument can no more be used to justify 



LITURGY 



CERE MO NIALS. 



147 



costly and gorgeous vestments for any class of Christian 
ministers, than to justify the sacrifice of beasts, or any 
other ritual observances. Be it so, that the kind and 
number of ceremonies to be used among Christians, 
must be referred to their own judgment and taste, in the 
circumstances in which they are placed. Still, is there 
not a wrong judgment and taste, as well as a right ? And 
are there not some sober principles, some rational con- 
siderations, which should guide us in this- matter ? May 
we not learn some useful lessons from the history of the 
church in different periods and in different places? In 
the proper use of our discretionary power, nothing can 
afford us more valuable assistance, than the experience 
of past times. It will be suitable then, that we should 
make a twofold inquiry : first; what has been the state 
of religion at those times when the ceremonies of the 
church have been most abundant and splendid; and, 
secondly ; what has been the state of religion, when 
its ceremonials have been most plain and simple? If 
these inquiries are diligently and candidly pursued, the 
result cannot fail to be of essential benefit. 

Here we are carried back to the long period, the cen- 
turies upon centuries, in which Papal Rome was trium- 
phant. That was preeminently, the period of rites and 
ceremonies. And who is ignorant of the fact, that the 
spirit of piety decreased, very much in proportion to the 
increase of ceremonial observances ? The influence of 
these two was doubtless reciprocal. The low and apos- 
tate condition of the church naturally led to the multipli- 
cation of external rites and forms, as a substitute for true 
piety. And these, in their turn, by occupying the mind 
with a lower class of emotions, precluded those which 



148 



LECTURE VI. 



are more spiritual, and reduced Christianity to such a 
state, that little more than the name was left. And it 
is much the same at the present day. In those coun- 
tries where there is the greatest abundance of ceremo- 
nies, and where ceremonies are most highly esteemed ; 
there, if I mistake not, is the least real piety. In such 
circumstances, even those who appear to be religious, 
have their fancies so filled and delighted with the variety 
and splendour of ceremonies, that it is difficult for divine 
truth to reach their hearts. Their minds light upon the 
captivating exterior, and rest there ; and, as a necessary 
consequence, they are deprived of the more essential 
elements of the divine life. As to those who are desti- 
tute of piety, — their attention to ceremonials takes the 
place of gospel holiness, and produces self-complacency, 
and quietness in sin. By multiplying outward observan- 
ces, not enjoined in the word of God, or by attaching too 
great importance to those which were enjoined, they 
make void the divine law. And facts show, both among 
the Jews and the Catholics, that there are no men so 
shielded against the power of truth, and so far from the 
kingdom of heaven, as those whose consciences are qui- 
eted and whose hearts are stupified by superstitious ob- 
servances. The most abandoned sinners, — our Saviour 
says, publicans and harlots," are more easily convert- 
ed than they. And let me just add, that they who have 
little or no religion, are, in many cases, strongly inclin- 
ed to multiply external rites and forms, as a means of ap- 
peasing their guilty and restless consciences. " Being 
ignorant of the righteousness of God," that is, of God's 
way of justifying them who believe, and being opposed 
in their hearts to the requirements of the divine law, 



LITURGY CEREMONIALS. 149 

" they go about to establish a righteousness of their own^' 
by superstitious observances. This has been the case to 
a great extent among Jews and Christians, and also 
among Mohammedans and Pagans. 

Turn now to the other side. Take those who have 
adhered most strictly to the simplicity of gospel institu- 
tions, and guarded most scrupulously against human 
inventions. And where can you find a better instance, 
than the Puritans of New England from the begin- 
ning to the present lime ? Far would I be from boasting. 
Were I ever so much inclined to this, there is enough 
in New England to prevent. But it is always safe to 
judge of the tree by its fruits. And I am persuaded 
that the character of the Puritans will bear to be tried 
by this test. There has, I think, been no race of men, 
who have exhibited more of the genuine fruits of the 
Spirit, or have done more for the highest interests of 
Christ's kingdom, than the pious Puritans. New Eng- 
land, in the best aspects of its character and condition^ 
is what the influence of the Puritans has made it. And 
it is well known that Puritans have always been averse 
to ceremonies ; — perhaps they have carried their aver- 
sion to an extreme. In New England, the religion of 
the Puritans has been the prevailing religion, and it was 
the established religion. And so far, at least, as Massa- 
chusetts is concerned, other forms of religion are secta- 
rian, and other denominations are Dissenters. Now the 
connection of the character, institutions and prosperity 
of New England with the plain manners and simple re- 
ligious rites of its inhabitants, is not accidental ; but is 
founded in the nature of the mind, and the nature of 
Christianity. Other things being equal, plain Chris- 



150 



LECTURE VI. 



tians, with simple religious observances, — I mean, just 
so simple, as they are set forth to be in the New Testa- 
ment, — are more likely to worship God in spirit and in 
truth, and attain to eminence in piety, than those who 
are occupied and encumbered with a multitude of reli- 
gious forms and ceremonies. 

But there is another source of knowledge, which I 
would not overlook. Job said ; **Ask now the beasts, 
and they shall teach thee ; and the fowls of the air, and 
they shall tell thee : or speak to the earth, and it shall 
instruct thee." I say too, ask the heavens and the earth, 
and they shall impart some profitable knowledge in re- 
gard to the present subject. The works of God in crea- 
tion and providence, are stamped with wonderful majes- 
ty and simplicity. The majesty of the divine works is a 
real majesty, consisting in their own nature and extent, 
and not arising from anything like pomp or ceremonial, 
intended to make an artificial display. The works of 
God are unostentatious and simple. They are just what 
they are, never putting on any outward appearances of 
grandeur for the sake of impression. The Sun is a 
great and glorious object, suited to fill beholders with 
wonder and joy. His going forth is from the end of 
the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it; and 
there is nothing hid from the heat thereof." But see 
how silently and unostentatiously he moves and shines, 
and how modestly he conceals almost all his greatness 
and splendor from our view. Though many hundred 
thousands of times as large as this whole world of ours, 
he presents himself to our view as but little larger than a 
man's hand. So it is with the whole solar system. Who 
can comprehend its sublimity and grandeur ? But what 



LITURGY CEREMONIALS. 151 

perfect simplicity appears in every part. Stand and 
gaze upon the moon and stars in a clear evening sky. 
There is no ostentation, no noise. It is simple, silent 
majesty. — The worlds around us are all in rapid and 
various motion : but they suffer not their motion to be 
seen, though gazed upon ever so intensely. The crea- 
ted Universe is full of greatness and glory. But it has 
no ceremony. So far from putting on an artificial ex- 
terior to make a display of its intrinsic excellence, it 
seems rather to take pains to hide its excellence from 
our eyes. This is God's manner of working. 

And how is it with the sublimest works which man 
has been enabled to perform, — I mean miraculous works ? 
Read the story of what took place in Egypt. Moses 
was engaged in bringing great and marvellous things to 
pass. But how simple his appearance, and his manner 
of action. He did not assume the gorgeous apparel of 
a young Egyptian Prince, to gain the admiration of the 
people. He did indeed make use of a few outward 
signs. But how plain and simple they were. He had 
a rod or staff in his hand ; and when about to work a 
miracle, he merely stretched out that rod, in obedience 
to the divine command, and as a sign of the divine 
power. This was the amount of the ceremony which 
Moses used. 

Consider the case of Naaman, the Syrian, who came 
with great pomp to Elisha to be healed of his leprosy, 
and expected that Elisha would be as pompous as he, 
and would come out majestically, and stand and call 
upon the name of his God, and move his hand over the 
place, and so recover the leper. Of course, he w^as 
greatly disappointed at the simplicity and plainness of 



152 



LECTURE VI. 



the Prophet, who had nothing to do with pomp and cer- 
emony, and only said, wash, and be clean." 

What majesty and glory marked the works of Christ ! 
But how little ceremony and display appeared! His 
coming was not with outward show, but with divine 
power. He spake, and it was done. He said to the 
sick, be healed, — to the dead, come forth, — to the bois- 
terous winds and waves, be still. Once he used what 
may be called a ceremony, or outward sign. But it was 
exceedingly simple. He wet a little clay, and put it on 
the eyes of the blind man, and told him to go and wash 
in the pool of Siloam. — The Apostles imitated their Lord 
and Master, and wrought miracles in the most simple, 
unostentatious manner prssible, — just speaking a word, 
or laying on their hand, as a token of their dependence 
on God, and their expectation of his agency in accom- 
plishing the miraculous works. 

By these remarkable instances of divine works we 
are taught, that the greatest and best things, and things 
intended to make the deepest and most sacred impres- 
sion on the human mind, may be accomplished, and 
are accomplished, without ceremony and show. By the 
divine works themselves, unaccompanied by any magni- 
ficent signs, or any signs whatever, except those which 
are merely sufficient to direct our thoughts to the Al- 
mighty Agent, — by these works themselves, the most sub- 
lime truths are inculcated, and the most salutary and 
devout emotions excited. 

And why is not the same true in regard to our pres- 
ent subject, — the worship, the institutions and rites of 
our religion ? I might reason on the subject ; but I 
choose to go where a clearer light shines, than human 



LITURGY 



CEREMONIALS . 



153 



reasoning can afford, and where an example is presen- 
ted, of higher authority, than all the usages of ancient 
or modern times. I go directly to the ivord of God, — 
to the Neiv Testament, where we find truth unmixed 
with error, and where the Christian institutions and rites 
are set before us in their original purity, — just as they 
came from our Great High Priest, the Head of the 
church, and just as they were administered by him and 
by his inspired Apostles. Whatever, and however vari- 
ous, may be the opinions and practices of uninspired 
men, and however difficult it may be for us, in some 
cases, to determine from them what is right and what is 
wrong ; this one thing is clear ; — that so far as we con- 
form, in judgment and practice, to the instructions and 
example of Christ and his Apostles, we are on the ground 
of truth and safety. 

Read then the history of Christ and the Apostles ; 
and learn what you can, of their raiment and their per- 
sonal appearance. Begin with Jesus of Nazareth, the 
Lord and Saviour of the church. How was it with him 
in regard to clothing and personal appearance? A pe- 
culiar and very splendid dress, you know, was prescribed 
for the High Priest under the Mosaic economy. Did 
Jesus assume that peculiar and splendid dress? Did he 
assume any part of it, or make any approach to it? Did 
he put on any robes, by which he was distinguished 
from the common people? Far from it. Jesus wore 
no sacerdotal dress ; and no crown adorned his head, 
except a crown of thorns. He was indeed a High Priest, 
and he was a King, and that by way of eminence ; and 
he was a Jew too. Why then did he not assume the 
insignia of a Jewish High Priest and a Jewish King ?~ 



154 



LECTURE VI. 



Because he was a High Priest of another order, — a 
spiritual High Priest ; — and because he was a King of 
another character, — a King, whose kingdom was not of 
this world ; — because he was so much superior to a Jew- 
ish High Priest and King, that it would have been de- 
grading to his character and office, to wear the garments 
prescribed for them. Such was his personal excellence 
and worthiness, and so dignified and glorious his work, 
that he neither used nor needed any outward splendor 
to recommend him, and to gain for him the love and 
veneration of his people. And how was it with his 
Apostles, who held the highest office in his church, and 
were set up as examples to all gospel ministers? How 
was it with the holy Apostles ? Did they put on any 
rich and sacerdotal robes, distinguishing them from oth- 
er men ? Did their Lord prescribe any such robes, as 
necessary or proper to their office? Not so. They 
needed no such external distinctions, no peculiar insig- 
nia of their Apostolic office. They needed nothing to 
secure the esteem and veneration of men, but the supe- 
rior excellence of their character and works, the dignity 
of truth and virtue, — the likeness of Christ, When 
Paul appeared before Felix, and before Agrippa, to make 
his defence ; would it have added anything to his per- 
sonal dignity, or to the power of his address, had he 
worn the splendid dress of a Jewish High Priest, or a 
Popish Cardinal ? 

You see now how it is with Jesus, our great exemplar, 
and with his Apostles. They made use of nothing them- 
selves in the way of external distinction ; and they pre- 
scribed nothing for others. Nowhere in the New Tes- 
tament have we any precept or example either of Christ 



LITURGY 



CEREMONIALS. 



155 



or his Apostles, in favor of anything ornamental in our 
dress or outward appearance, as a badge of the sacred 
office. 

What shall we say then of the costly and showy attire, 
worn in after ages by the Dignitaries of the church of 
Rome ? Did they think it a proper expression of Chris- 
tian humility ? Or was it an affectation of the pomp of 
Oriental courts ? Or was it an attempt to copy after a 
Jewish ceremonial which had been done away ? Or 
was it intended as a substitute for the excellence of truth 
and holiness? And has not too great a part of the rich, 
Pontifical attire of the Romish Bishops been retained in 
the Protestant Episcopal church ? 

Here, in the exercise of the right which I claim, of 
remarking freely on whatever is of human origin, I turn 
to the form of consecrating a Bishop. That part of the 
service which consists of addresses and prayers, is, with 
one exception, just. But when I come to the ceremo- 
nial as to the Bishop's dress, and find that, according to 
the particular direction of the Rubric, the Bishop, who 
is presented for consecration, is to be vested with a Sur- 
plice, or White garb, I pause a little, and yield to my 
propensity, — which I hope is not one of the forbidden 
propensities, — to inquire into the reason of things. Ac- 
cording to the common custom of dress, we should think 
that an outside garment of white linen, muslin, or lawn, 
worn in a public assembly, would be far more suitable 
for a woman, than for a man. We must look then for 
some other ground of the ceremony, besides the influ- 
ence of common usage. Now I should be apt to think, 
that the white color of the garment must be intended to 
denote ihe peculiar purity or holiness of the ministerial 



156 



LECTURE VI. 



clinracter or office. But I am met with a difficulty here; 
for, in the services of the Sabbath, the white dress is 
worn only through a part of the exercises, and then is 
changed for a black dress; and if the color of the gar- 
ments is meant to indicate moral qualities, and if white 
indicates purity or holiness; then, as black is the oppo- 
site of white, it would seem to indicate the opposite of 
purity. Besides, it would be a question which 1 could 
not readily solve, why the ministerial character or office 
should be considered more pure and holy in one part of 
the public service, than in another part. T must then 
regard the use of the white gown, and the change from 
white to black as a custom sui generis^ and as a total 
departure from the custom which in all other cases gov- 
erns the dress of men in religious assemblies. And the 
reasons of all this, though far from being obvious to 
common minds, may perhaps be fully set forth in some 
ancient or modern document, which satisfactorily ex- 
plains the various forms and ceremonies of the Episcopal 
church, as the Homilies of Cyril explain some of the 
ceremonies which prevailed in his day, particularly those 
which pertained to the rite of Baptism. — Or perhaps I 
am going beyond my province. For the grounds of this 
peculiar custom of dress may perhaps be such, that nei- 
ther curiosity nor reason has any right to meddle with 
them. 

1 shall however take the liberty to proceed, — holding 
myself ready to be checked or corrected, as the case 
may require. — After various religious services, the Bish- 
op is to put on the rest of the Episcopal habit. Several 
additional ceremonials have been used in the consecra- 
tion of an English Bishop, particularly putting a mitre 



LITURGY 



CEREMONIALS. 



157 



or croion on his head, and setting him on a little throne. 
These however are not adopted in this country, and I 
know not whether the throne is continued in England, 
except, as I am told, for the Archbishop. But the Ru- 
bric not only prescribes a peculiar dress for a Bishop, 
but, what is more, requires a part of that official dress to 
be put on before the service of consecration becfins, and 
the rest during the service, just before the laying on of 
hands. Now if I were to apply my reason to the sub- 
ject, I should say, if the whole of the Bishop's habit is 
not put on before the beginning of the public service, 
why any part of it ? Or I would rather ask, why the 
whole Episcopal habit is not put on before repairing to 
the church ? Why so much ado about the Bishop's dress, 
in the midst of the solemn public service ? But here too 
reasoning may be out of place. I repair then to the in- 
fallible standard. And I find that all this ceremonial 
about the Bishop's attire is an addition to the instruc- 
tions and example of Christ and his Apostles, and to the 
simple institutions of the gospel. And farther : if, on 
the ground of ancient usage, so much ceremonial as this 
is required, why not more ? Why not invest a Bishop 
completely with the gorgeous apparel of a Jewish High 
Priest, or of the highest ecclesiastics at Rome 1 At 
least, why not retain the English practice of crowning 
the Bishop ? 

But in regard to this matter of dress, the question 
again forces itself upon my thoughts; — did Jesus wear 
anything like the peculiar attire of a Bishop ? And did 
he ever make any alteration in his attire during public 
worship? It may be said that Jesus was poor, and that 
he had not the means of procuring costly robes. He 



158 



LECTURE VI. 



was indeed poor ; but his poverty was voluntary. The 
riches of the universe were at his command. Besides, 
if any peculiar dress, any external badge of his high of- 
fice, had been offered to him ; would he have accepted 
it 1 Would he not have rebuked those who offered it, 
as he did those who wished to crown him as a King, 
saying, " my kingdom is not of this world." 

I go also to the Apostles. Did they on any occasion 
appear in a peculiar attire, like what I have noticed ? 
Paul doubtless was a Bishop. Did Paul wear it ? Pe- 
ter was a Bishop ; and they say he was the Bishop of 
Rome ; — and doubtless he was as truly great and worthy 
of honor, as any who call themselves his successors. 
But did Peter, the Bishop of Rome, and the worthy Pre- 
decessor of all the Popes ! — did he wear a splendid, pon- 
tifical attire ? — Paul and Peter and all the Apostles were 
plain men ; — they were decent, honorable, wise men, 
and they had a good taste; but they were plain men, — 
men of great simplicity, and averse to outward decora- 
tions and vain show. Paul and Peter gave their united 
and decided testimony against such decorations even in 
women, in whom they must be allowed to be proper, if 
proper at all. See 1 Tim. 2:9. 1 Pet. 3 : 3. Had there 
been occasion for it, they would doubtless have given a 
still stronger testimony against unusual decorations in 
the dress of men. 

Shall 1 ask you just to look at the scene which has, 
more than once, presented itself to my imagination, — an 
imagination not endued with the gift of extravagance, or 
with the power of creating things out of nothing. — On 
the one hand, then, turn your eyes to Paul, and Peter, 
and John, and James, and Jesus their Lord among them, 



LITURGY CEREMONIALS. 



159 



— all clothed with plain, decent, simple apparel. Be- 
hold attentively the Son of God and the Son of man, — 
and those ministers and Apostles of his. — On the other 
hand, see, standing near them, four Catholic Bishops, 
and the Pope, — or four English Bishops, and the Arch- 
bishop, — arrayed in gorgeous robes, the insignia of 
their high office. Mark the contrast ! — the plain, hum- 
ble appearance of those on one side, — and the splen- 
did, magnificent appearance of those on the other side. 
Who would suppose that Son of man, so meek and 
lowly, to be their Supreme Lord and King ? And 
who would suppose that those Catholic or English Bish- 
ops, thus apparelled, were his servants^ commissioned 
by him, and receiving all power and authority, and all 
spiritual blessings from him ; — and that they were the 
successors in the ministerial office, of those Apostles, — 
men so plain, and clothed with humility ? Is it alleged, 
that modern Bishops need something to set off their 
character and office, and to secure the respect of the 
multitude ? But why did not Christ and the Apostles 
need such an exterior to recommend them ? Ah ! you 
say, they had the recommendation of high sanctity of 
character^ — the recommendation of divine truth, — the ma" 
jesty of truth. Well then, let all the servants of Christ 
and successors of the Apostles be invested, as I trust 
some of them are, with the same sanctity of character, 
and the same majesty of divine truth ; and this shall be 
their recommendation, — this shall secure for them the 
veneration of the world, and the love and confidence of 
the good. 

The following canon of the church of England, pub- 
lished, I think, in the time of King James, shows how 



160 



LECTURE VI. 



much was thought of a peculiar dress, for the very pur- 
pose of recommending the Bishops and the inferior clergy 
to popular favor. The canon is as follows. 

The true, ancient and flourishing churches of Christ, 
being ever desirous that their Prelacy and clergy might 
be had as well in outward reverence^ as otherwise regard- 
ed for the worthiness of their ministry, did think it fit, 
by a prescript form of decent and comely apparel, to 
have them known to the people, and thereby to receive the 
honor — due to the niinisters of Almighty God; we there- 
fore, following their grave judgment, and the ancient 
custom of the church of England, and hoping that in 
time newfangleness of apparel will die of itself, do ap- 
point, that the Archbishops and Bishops shall not inter- 
mit to use the accustomed apparel of their degrees." — 
That apparel had been exactly prescribed before. The 
canon then proceeds to direct that all Deans, Archdea- 
cons, Prebendaries, and Doctors of Divinity shall wear 
gowns with such particular collars and sleeves, together 
with hoods or tippets, and square caps. The same ca- 
non also prescribes the cloaks which the inferior eccle- 
siastics shall wear on their journies, the dress they shall 
use in private houses, and even the caps they shall wear 
in the night. 

On this canon I have two remarks to make. First. 
If ecclesiastical Rulers undertake to regulate the dress 
of ministers, whether of the higher or lower order, by a 
minute and exact legislation, how undignified and frivo- 
lous their enactments are likely to be ! Second. If 
ministers possess the requisite qualifications, they will 
of course carefully conform to decent custom, and will 
use the dress, which is generally esteemed most suitable 



LITURGY CEREMONIALS. 161 

for men in their condition. And who can doubt that 
it is perfect!^ safe to leave the matter to be regulated in 
this way ? Well qualified ministers of the gospel will 
always appear in a becoming dress. It will not, howev- 
er, be their dress^ but the worthiness of their character 
and the sacredness of their office, which will procure 
for them the high esteem and love of the people. Should 
any minister neglect to wear a decent and honorable ap- 
parel, — for example, should he appear in the pulpit with 
a white coat, white gown, or a red jacket, he would prove 
himself essentially wanting in the decorum of the minis- 
terial character, and ought most surely to be dealt with 
as an offender. 

But these remarks on ministerial dress may have been 
carried too far ; and in reference to the whole subject I 
may be reminded of the adage, de gustihus non dispu- 
tandum est, — there is no arguing about matters of taste. 
So be it. I will freely concede to others, what I claim 
for myself, — not only the rights of conscience, but the 
rights of taste. And I will close with saying, that my 
taste, which has been formed on the model of my Puritan 
ancestors, and of the New Testament Scriptures, is de- 
cidedly in favor of a plain, simple apparel for ministers, 
and plain, simple rites and forms in religious worship. 



11 



LECTURE VII. 



In this Lecture, I shall state my last objection to the 
Episcopal scheme. But it is an objection to that scheme, 
as held hy the High church party. In what constitutes 
the substance of my objection, I shall therefore have the 
satisfaction of going in company with a great part of the 
Episcopal denomination, both in this country, and in 
England. Several distinguished Episcopalians who have 
rejected the peculiarities of High church men, have 
been mentioned in previous Lectures. I have no means 
of judging on which side the majority is found, — though 
it is said to be, especially among laymen, in opposition 
to High Churchism. I hope it will be found to be so 
among the clergy also. For it is my deliberate convic- 
tion, that the exclusive principle held by the High church 
party, is more repugnant to the spirit of Christianity, and 
more odious in the sight of God, than all the other errors 
which can be imputed to the Episcopal branch of the 
Christian Church. And unless my conceptions of God, 
and Christ, and the kingdom of Christ, and the work of 
the Holy Spirit, and the progress of religion, are all 
wrong, and totally wrong; the time is at hand, — (the 
Lord hasten it !) — when the High church principles, — 
not those who maintain them, — shall be swept away ; 
and shall be remembered, — -as the worst things in the 



164 



LECTURE VII. 



history of the church are now remembered, — with as- 
tonishment and shame. And as there are some parts of 
the Book of Common Prayer, which seem to give too 
much support to the principles, against which I so strong- 
ly object ; I cannot but hope that the parts referred to 
will be subjected to a thorough revision. 

I have already said, that there are many Episcopalians 
of the highest reputation, who utterly reject the princi- 
ples held by the High church party ; and who regard it 
as totally unscriptural, and some of them say " utterly 
foolish," to claim any exclusive divine right for Episco- 
pal ordination, or to refuse to acknowledge other com- 
munions as churches of Christ. Goode, speaking of 
ordination by Bishops alone, as successors of the Apos- 
tles, says ; I admit that there is not any Scripture 
proof for it." And he adds ; — as the proof is not to 
be found in Scripture, so antiquity is divided with re- 
spect to it. And moreover, — though it is the doctrine 
of our church, yet it is held by her with an allowance 
for those who may differ from her on the point, and not 
as if the observance of it was requisite by divine com- 
mand, and essential to the validity of all ordinations ; — • 
though, for the preservation of the full ecclesiastical reg- 
ularity of her own orders, she has made it essential to 
the ministers of her own communionJ^ If Episcopalians 
at large would adopt this candid and rational principle, 
and act upon it, my strongest objection against their ec- 
clesiastical system would vanish at once. 

In order to do full justice to those who reject the 
High church scheme, I make a quotation from another 
excellent writer, a distinguished layman of the church 
of England, to whose views many distinguished laymen 



HIGH CHURCH PRINCIPLE. 



165 



of the Episcopal church in America will give their cor- 
dial assent. I am aware," he says, that in St. Je- 
rome's time, there existed generally, though by no means 
universally, this difference betvveen the Bishop and the 
Presbyters, viz., that to the former was then confided the 
power of ordination. The transition from perfect equal- 
ity to absolute superiority was not suddenly effected ; — 
it was the grow^th of time : not of years, but of centuries." 
He says, that Episcopacy, in the modern acceptation 
of the term, did not exist in the time of the Apostles ; 
and that, however expedient — such an institution might 
be, it cannot plead the sanction of Apostolic appointment 
or example." — Thus much at least," he says, is cer- 
tain, namely, that the government of each church, in- 
eluding the ordination of ministers, was at first in the 
hands of the Presbytery; — that when one of that body 
was raised to the office of President, and on whom the 
title of Bishop was conferred, it was simply by the elec- 
tion of the other Presbyters, whose appointment was 
final, requiring no confirmation or consecration at the 
hands of any other Prelates." He adds : If then all 
this be so, there seems to be an end to the question ; for 
under whatever circumstances the privilege of ordaining 
was afterwards committed to the Bishop, he could of 
necessity receive no more than it was in their power to 
bestow, from whom he received it, who w^ere co-ordinate 
Presbyters, not superiors. At w^hatever period, there- 
fore, it was adopted, and with whatever uniformity it 
might be continued, and whatever value or even author- 
ity it might hence acquire ; still, as an Apostolic institu- 
tion it has none : there is a gap w^hich can never be fill- 
ed ; or rather, the link by which the whole must be sus- 



166 



LECTURE VII. 



pended is wanting, and can never be supplied. There 
can be no Apostolical succession of that which had no 
Apostolical existence." 

As it is such a pleasure to dwell upon these honest 
and honorable principles of Episcopalians, I shall add to 
the above a passage from Bishop Hoadley. Speaking of 
the Exclusive claims of High churchmen, that excellent 
Prelate says : I do not love, I confess, so much as to 
repeat the principal branches of their beloved scheme ; 
they are so different — — from the voice of the gospel. 
When they would claim you," (that is, seek to obtain 
you,) — ^' as their fellow-laborers the Papists do, — by 
telling you, that you cannot hope for the favor of God, 

but in the strictest communion with their church, 

that God hath himself hung your salvation upon this 
nicety; that he dispenses none of his favors or graces, 
but by the hands of them," (i. e. Bishops,) and their 
subordinate priests ; that you cannot be authoritatively 
blessed or released from your sins, but by them who are 
the regular priests ; that churches under other Bishops, 
(i. e. other than in regular succession,) are schismatical 
conventicles, made up of excommunicated persons, both 
clergy and laity, — out of God's church, as well as out of 
his favor ; — I say, when such arguments as these are 
urged, you need only to have recourse to a general an- 
swer to this whole heap of scandal and defamation upon 
the will of God, the gospel of Christ, and the church of 
England in particular ; — that you have not so learned 
Christ, or the design of his gospel, or even the founda- 
tion of this particular part of his church, reformed and 
established in England. The following arguments will 
justify you, which ought therefore to be frequently in 



HIGH CHURCH PRINCIPLE. 



167 



the thoughts of all who have any value for the most im- 
portant points : — God is just, and equal, and good ; and 
as sure as he is, he cannot put the salvation of any man 
upon what he himself has put it out of the power of any 
man upon earth to be entirely satisfied in. It hath not 
pleased God in his Providence ^ to keep up any proof of 
the least probabiliti/, or moral possibility of a regular ^ 
uninterrupted successions^' 

The views of such writers, so directly opposed to the 
High church claims, are, I think, fully sustained by 
Scripture, and by ecclesiastical history, and well agree 
with the enlarged spirit of Christian candor and charity. 
They have the evident stamp of truth and love. But the 
High church principle cannot be plainly stated, without 
being seen at once to be repugnant to the genius of the 
Christian religion. And I do not wonder, that so much 
is done to divert attention from its unseemly qualities, 
and that such reluctance is generally shown to bring it 
out in all its length and breadth to public view. We 
allege that it un-churches all non-Episcopal denomina- 
tions, and refuses to acknowledge those, who are out of 
the pale of the Episcopal church, as possessing the char- 
acter of Christians, or as being the members of Christ's 
spiritual kingdom. The advocates of the High church 
principle try to evade this charge by saying, that they 
make allowance for those who are kept out of their 
church by involuntary and unavoidable ignorance. But 
we cannot, if we would, avail ourselves of this allowance. 
We have had the necessary means of information. We 
have read the Bible, and ecclesiastical history with refe- 
rence to their claims. We have read their books. And 
the more we have read and thought, the more fully have 



168 



L E CTURE VII. 



we been convinced, that their system has no solid foun- 
dation. Now my question is, how do they regard us ? 
— I mean, the non-Episcopal churches and ministers of 
this country. How do they regard us, who are Congre- 
gationalists, Presbyterians, Baptists, and Methodists, 
taken just as we are ? Do they acknowledge the church- 
es of these denominations to be true churches of Christ, 
and their ministers to be true ministers of Christ ? Do 
they believe that these non-Episcopal ministers have a 
right to preach, and the promise of a divine blessing to 
attend their preaching ; and that the ordinances admin- 
istered by them are valid ? If they do, they renounce their 
High church principle. But the claims they assert, and 
the arguments they use in support of those claims, all 
show, that they do not mean to acknowledge us as mak- 
ing any part of the true ministry or church of Christ. 
Here their system comes out to view in all its narrow- 
ness and enormity ! — a small part of American Chris- 
tians, and a small part of Protestant Christians^ set 
themselves up to be the only true church of Christ, and 
their ministers as the only ministers of Christ, and the 
ordinances administered hy them, as the only valid ordi- 
nances ; when it is known in heaven and earth, that those 
whom they thus disown, are as manifestly owned of God, 
and have as much evidence of God's gracious presence 
and approbatio7i, and as many fruits of his Spirit^ as 
they themselves ! 

It would certainly be natural to expect, that such high 
and exclusive claims as those above mentioned, would be 
found to rest on the basis of clear, unquestionable evi- 
dence. But what evidence can the advocates of these 
claims produce 1 I ask for one passage in the New Tes- 



HIGH CHURCH PRINCIPLE. 



169 



lament which plainly teaches or implies, that no man, 
whatever his qualifications, and whatever else he may- 
do, can be a true minister of Christ, without being or- 
dained by a Prelatical Bishop. I ask for evidence, — for 
one iota of evidence from Scripture, that a Bishop is 
anything above a Presbyter, or a Presbyter anything be- 
low a Bishop ; or that one whom Episcopalians call a 
Bishop, has a whit more authority to ordain, than any 
other gospel minister ; or that he can, by the imposition 
of hands, impart any more ministerial authority or virtue, 
or that those who are ordained by him are, in truth, and 
in the sight of God, more truly or more completely in- 
vested with the sacred office, than those who are ordain- 
ed by others. Nay, I hold that our ecclesiastical order 
is far more conformed to the pattern of the Apostles and 
their immediate successors, than the Episcopal order. 
The evidence of this from Ecclesiastical History is, in 
my view, so clear and conclusive, that it cannot much 
longer be called in question by any man, who has the 
reputation of learning and candor. To say the least, 
the evidence against the existence of Prelacy in the first 
Christian churches is so various and powerful, that it may 
well lead all Prelates, as it does some of them, to assert 
their authority, not with an air of self-complacent supe- 
riority, but with gentleness, humility and candor. Not 
a few of them, however, being fully possessed with the 
idea of their Apostolic authority, confidently affirm, that 
they have the sole right to ordain, and that those minis- 
ters, who are not ordained by a Prelate, are not ordain- 
ed at all, and of course are not gospel ministers, and 
have no right to preach, or to administer the sacraments, 
or to do any part of the ministerial work : and that^ if 



170 



LECTURE VII. 



they undertake the work, they have no prospect of being 
acceptable to God, or profitable to men. — I might re- 
mind High churchmen, that this assumption of theirs is 
not founded, more or less, on the teachings of Christ and 
his Apostles, or of those who were the immediate suc- 
cessors of the Apostles. I might remind them, that their 
exclusive claim rests not upon divine inspiration, but 
upon human tradition ; — not upon the more ancient au- 
thority, — the infallible word of God, or the practice of 
the churches the first half century after the Apostles,- — 
but upon the less ancient authority, — the authority of 
fallible men in the third and fourth centuries. — I might 
remind them of the representation of such an author as 
Mosheim, namely, that in the infancy of the Councils in 
the third century, the Bishops did not scruple to ac- 
knowledge, that they appeared there merely as the min- 
isters or legates of their respective churches ; and that 
they were in fact nothing more than representatives act- 
ing under instructions ; but that it was not long before 
this humble language began, by little and little, to be ex- 
changed for a loftier tone ; and that they, at length, took 
it upon them to assert, that they were the legitimate suc- 
cessors of the Apostles themselves, and might, conse- 
quently, by their own proper authority, dictate to the 
Christian flock." — I might also remind them of the ori- 
gin of the high Episcopal pretensions in the church of 
England ; that they were unknown for a long time after 
the establishment of that church ; and that they originat- 
ed about the time when the Puritans settled in this coun- 
try. Hallam, in his Constitutional History of England, 
' — which Macaulay speaks of as the most impartial book 
he ever read, — says : Laud and his party began, about 



HIGH CHURCH PRINCIPLE. 



171 



the end of Elizabeth's reign, by preaching the divine 
right, as it is called, or absolute indispensability of Epis- 
copacy ; a doctrine^ of wldcli the first traces, as I ap' 
preliend, are found about the end of Elizabeth's reign. 
They insisted on the necessity of Episcopal succession, 
regularly derived from the Apostles. They drew an in- 
ference from this tenet, that ordinations by Presbyters 
were, in all cases, null." They began now to speak of 
Lutherans and Calvinists, as aliens, to whom they were 
not at all related, and as schismatics, with whom they 
held no communion ; nay, as wanting the very essence 
of Christian society. This again brought them nearer, 
by irresistible consequence, to the disciples of Rome." — 
I might also refer to the more recent representation of 
Neander, whose learning, impartiality, and sound judg- 
ment are too well known to need any recommendation 
from me. He thinks that, in the ordinary course of 
events in the Primitive church, a distinction among 
Christian ministers, who were originally of the same 
rank, was introduced, and that one of them gradually 
obtained preeminence over his colleagues ; and by rea- 
son of that peculiar oversight which he exercised over 
the whole community, was designated by the name Bish- 
op, which was at first applied to all Presbyters indiscri- 
minately. He says, however, there is no evidence that 
any Apostle introduced this change ; much less that he 
authorized it as a perpetual ordinance. But he candid- 
ly allows, that such a change in the mode of administer- 
ing the government of the church, resulting from pecu- 
liar circumstances, may have been introduced as a salu- 
tary expedient, without implying any departure from the 
purity of the Christian spirit. But he says : When 



172 



LECTURE VII . 



the doctrine is,— that Bishops are, by divine right, the 
head of the church, and invested with the government 
of the same ; — that they are the successors of the Apos- 
tles, and by this succession exercise apostolical authori- 
ty ; that they are the medium through which, in conse- 
quence of that ordination which they have received 
merely in an outward manner, the Holy Ghost, in all 
time to come, must be transmitted to the church ; — 
when this doctrine, which gradually gained currency in 
the third century, becomes the doctrine of the church, 
we certainly must perceive, in these assumptions, a 
strong corruption of the purity of the Christian system. 
It it a carnal perversion of the true idea of the Christian 
church. It is falling back into the spirit of the Jewish 
religion. Instead of the Christian idea of a church, 
based on inward principles of communion, and extend- 
ing itself by means of these, it presents us with the image 
of one, — resting in outward ordinances, and, by external 
rites, seeking to promote the kingdom of God. This 
entire perversion of the original views of the Christian 
church was itself the origin of the whole system of the 
Roman Catholic religion, — the germ, from which sprung 
the popery ®f the dark ages." 

This eminent writer would have no controversy with 
that class of Episcopalians who adhere to the Episcopal 
system, as well adapted, in their opinion, to the exigen- 
cies of their church." He says; "We would live in 
harmony with them, notwithstanding their mistaken 
views of the true form of the church, provided they do 
not denounce other systems of church government. But 
the doctrine of the absolute necessity of the Episcopal 
as the only valid form of government, and of the Episco- 



HIGH CHURCH PRINCIPLE. 173 

pal succession of Bishops above mentioned, in order to 
a participation of the gifts of the Spirit, — all this we 
must regard as something foreign to the true idea of the 
Christian church. It is in direct conflict with the spirit 
of Protestantism ; and is the origin, not of the true Ca- 
tholicism of the Apostles, but of that of the Romish 
church. When therefore Episcopalians disown, as es- 
sentially deficient in their ecclesiastical organization, 
other Protestant churches, which evidently have the spirit 
of Christ; it only remains for us to protest, in the 
strongest terms, against their setting up such a standard 
— for the Christian church. Far be it from us, who 
began with Luther in the spirit, that we should now de- 
sire to be made perfect by the flesh."* 

Such testimonies and argum.ents as I have now pre- 
sented, in connection with those given in previous Lec- 
tures, against the High church assumptions, and com- 
ing, as they do, from Episcopalians and others of such 
reputation, must, I think, have weight in the public 
mind. I hope they will have some weight v/ith Episco- 
palians, even with those v>^ho hold the High church prin- 
ciples. But I have been too conversant with the human 
mind and human affairs, to indulge any sanguine expec- 
tation, that differences of opinion on such subjects will, 
generally, be either removed or diminished by the influ- 
ence of controversy. Unhappily, it is often found to be 
the effect of controversy, that the parties engaged in it, 
are carried still further apart from each other. It would 
be very painful to me, if it should prove to be so in the 
present case. For how earnestly soever I may desire to 



* Neander's Introduction to Coleman's Primitive Church. 



174 



LECTURE VII. 



convince Episcopalians of what I regard as faults in their 
scheme ; I am still more desirous that mutual prejudices 
may be done away, and that ministers and churches of 
different names, who truly believe the doctrines and obey 
the precepts of the gospel, may receive one another in 
love, as they have all, and equally, been received by 
Christ, their common Lord and Saviour. All real Chris- 
tians ought to be so mindful of the debt of gratitude 
which they owe to him who loved them and died for 
them, and who called them with a holy calling, not ac- 
cording to their works, but according to his own purpose 
and grace, — they ought to be so delighted with their 
happy relation to the Redeemer and Head of the church, 
and with that eternal inheritance which they will all in 
a few days enjoy together in heaven, — and they ought 
to be so occupied with the momentous work of honor- 
ing Christ, and preparing themselves and others for his 
coming and kingdom, that all differences in mere out- 
ward forms shall, in their view, sink into comparative 
insignificance. Their affection to Christ should be so 
strong, that they shall desire above all things to please 
him. And it must be perfectly clear to them, that they 
can do nothing more pleasing to him, than to love those 
whom he loves, and to receive those whom he has re- 
ceived, and especially to look with hearty complacency 
and joy upon all those who bear his image, and love his 
cause, and w^ho are laboring f\iithfully, and with abun- 
dant evidence of his gracious presence and approbation, 
to preach his glorious gospel. 

Instances are not wanting of that candid, fraternal 
affection and conduct, v/hich should be found in Chris- 
tians, towards those who differ from them as to outward 



HIGH CHURCH PRINCIPLE. 



175 



forms of worship and government. There are many 
praise-worthy examples of this among different denom- 
inations in this country. Congregationalists, Presby- 
terians of different classes, Baptists, and Methodists, 
however strong their predilections for their own peculi- 
arities, and their objections to the peculiarities of each 
other, still maintain a kind, brotherly intercourse. Min- 
isters of these several denominations recognize each 
other as true gospel ministers, frequently exchange min- 
isterial labors, and even assist in each other's ordination. 
And all this they do, not in the way of time-serving, and 
not because they have the least disposition to give up 
anything which is a matter of conscience. Their motive 
is widely different. They do it, because they regard the 
great, essential things of Christianity as of paramount 
importance ; because they love all who bear the image 
of Christ ; and because they have some enlargedness of 
mind, and, in things which are not essential to the 
scheme of gospel truth, are willing to concede to others 
the same right of private judgment and the same liberty 
of action, as they claim for themselves. This spirit of 
Christian liberality and love has for the most part, and 
particularly in some very significant instances, been a 
conspicuous mark of the Puritans, — although the oppo- 
site qualities of uncharitableness and bigotry, have so 
often been imputed to them. I cannot but glory in the 
lovely and noble character they exhibited, or rather in 
the grace of Christ which was w^ith them, when I call to 
mind their feelings and conduct in the remarkable case 
of which I am about to make miention. The Puritans 
in England, both ministers and private Christians, judged 
by the standard of Scripture or impartial reason, were a 



176 



LECTURE VII. 



noble race of men, indued with extraordinary intellec- 
tual and moral excellence. This character always has 
been and always will be awarded to them by discerning 
and candid men. From time to time they had suffered 
persecution in different ways, and in no small degree, 
from the civil and ecclesiastical power. But they suffer- 
ed with meekness, and endeavoured to comply with the 
gospel precept, not to return evil for evil. In the year 
1630, ten years after the first settlement of our forefa- 
thers in Massachusetts, a body of Puritan emigrants em- 
barked for this new country on board the ship Arbella. 
On that occasion, — which was to them so deeply solemn 
and interesting, — they were elevated above all selfish 
and contracted feelings, and their hearts were wide open 
to sentiments of the tenderest affection and confidence 
towards all who loved the Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity, 
and particularly towards their brethren of the church of 
England, from whom they had conscientiously dissented, 
and of whom they were now about to take a final leave. 
They were Dissenters and Puritans before they came to 
America, as much as they were after. But they were 
Christians ; and they recognized Christians in the 
church from which they had honestly separated, and 
loved them with pure hearts fervently. Before sailing, 
they addressed a letter to them, — a letter which breathes 
a spirit worthy to be praised, — as it has been by Episco- 
palians as well as others, — and not only to be praised, 
but to be imitated. They address themselves with great 
respect and affection to their fathers and brethren of the 
church of England, and express a strong desire to pro- 
cure " the prayers and blessings of the Lord's faithful 
servants." " For which end," they say, we — have 



HIGH CHURCH PRINCIPLE. 177 

recourse unto you, as those whom God hath placed near- 
est his throne of mercy ; — v/e beseech you, therefore, by 
the mercies of the Lord Jesus, to consider us as your 
brethren, standing in very great need of your help, and 
earnestly imploring it. And howsoever your charity may 
have met with some occasion of discouragement through 
the misreport of our intentions, or through the disaffec- 
tion, or indiscretion of some of us, or rather amongst 
us : for we are not of those who dream of perfection in 
this world ; yet we desire you would be pleased to take 
notice of the Principals and body of our company, as 
those who esteem it our honor to call the church of Eng- 
land, from whence we rise, our dear mother, and cannot 
part from our native country where she specially resid- 
eth, without much sadness in our hearts, and many 
tears, — ever remembering that such hope and part as we 
have obtained in the common salvation, we have receiv- 
ed in her bosom, and sucked from her breasts ; we leave 
it not therefore, loathing the milk wherewith we were 
nourished there; but, blessing God for the parentage 
and education, as members of the same body, shall al- 
ways rejoice in her good, and unfeignedly grieve for any 
sorrow that shall ever betide her, and while we have 
breath, sincerely desire and endeavour the continuance 
and abundance of her welfare, with the enlargement of 
her bounds in the kingdom of Christ Jesus." 

Be pleased therefore. Reverend fathers and breth- 
ren, to help forward this work now in hand. It is an 

usual and laudable exercise of your charity, to recom- 
mend to the prayers of your congregations, the necessi- 
ties and straits of your private neighbours. Do the like 
for a church springing out of your own bowels. We 
12 



178 



LECTURE VII. 



conceive much hope, that this remembrance of us, if it 
be frequent and fervent, will be a most prosperous gale 
in our sails, and provide such a passage and vi^elcome for 
us from the God of the whole earth, as both we who shall 
find it, and yourselves with the rest of our friends, who 
shall hear of it, shall be much enlarged to bring in such 
daily returns of thanksgiving, as the specialties of his 
Providence — may justly challenge at all our hands. 
You are not ignorant, that the Spirit of God stirred up 
the Apostle Paul to make continual mention of the 
church of Philippi, which was a colony of Rome. Let 
the same Spirit, we beseech you, put you in mind, — to 
pray for us without ceasing, who are a weak colony from 
yourselves, making continual request for us to God in all 
your prayers." 

If any there be, who through want of clear intelli- 
gence of our course, or tenderness of affection towards 
us, cannot conceive so well of our way as we could de- 
sire ; we would intreat such not to despise us, nor to de- 
sert us in their prayers, — but to consider rather, that 
they are so much the more bound to express the bowels 
of their compassion toward us, remembering always, that 
both nature and grace doth bind us to relieve and rescue, 
with our utmost — power, such as are dear unto us, 
when we conceive them to be running uncomfortable 
hazards.^' 

*^ What goodness you shall extend to us in this or any 
other Christian kindness, we, your brethren in Christ 
Jesus, shall labor to repay in what duty we are or shall 
be able to perform, promising, so far as God shall enable 

us, to give him no rest on your behalf, when we 

shall be in our poor cottages in the wilderness. . 



HIGH CHURCH PRINCIPLE. 179 

And so commending you to the grace of God in Christ, 
we shall ever rest, Your assured friends and brethren." 

This letter was subscribed by Jo. Winthrop, Gov., 
Rich, Saltonstall, and others, and was dated, Yarmouth, 
aboard the Arbella, April 7, 1630. 

I have referred so particularly to this instance of ele- 
vated Christian feeling and conduct, as highly creditable 
to those Puritan emigrants, and as what I hope may be 
profitable to others. I am confident that a letter, so re- 
spectful and affectionate as this, must have produced a 
powerful effect, and that many ministers and laymen in 
the church of England must have heartily responded to 
the sentiments of sincere love and piety, which were so 
meekly and tenderly addressed to them. Those pious 
Puritans, enlisted in such a great and perilous enterprise, 
and then about to leave their native country, passed over 
all matters of minor consequence, and looked upon the 
church of England as a branch of the spiritual kingdom 
of Christ, and acknowledged all Christians who belonged 
to it, as brethren. Who can doubt, that the worthy and 
the good in that church were actuated by a similar spirit 
of affection and candor, and that they regarded those 
Puritans with true brotherly love, and offered up many 
fervent and effectual prayers to God in their behalf ? 

Some Episcopalians are fond of quoting the above- 
mentioned letter, for the purpose of showing how high a 
place their church formerly had in the esteem even of 
Puritans. This is all well. But ought they to stop 
here ? If the Puritans did what was proper in writing 
such a letter, it ought to be mentioned to their honor, as 
well as to the honor of those to whom it was addressed. 
And if Episcopalians consider the sentiments of humility 



180 



LECTURE VII. 



and brotherly kindness and charity, which pervade the 
letter, to be scriptural and just, they ought to be in har- 
mony with them, and to reciprocate them. If it is right 
for Puritan ministers and Christians to esteem and love 
Episcopalians as brethren, it is right that they, in their 
turn, should be esteemed and loved hy Episcopalians in 
the same way. If Episcopalians are disposed to receive 
honor from the fraternal affection of Puritans, let them 
take care, by the same fraternal aifection, to honor the 
Puritans, — according to the golden rule,— Whatsoever 
ye would that men should do unto you, do ye even so to 
them." — It cannot be that Episcopalians should really 
think, as they do, that the views and feelings expressed 
in this remarkable document are worthy of their hearty 
commendation, without being aware that they are also 
worthy of their imitation, — And if all churchmen and 
all dissenters in Great Britain, and all Episcopalians and 
non-Episcopalians in America might be animated and 
governed by those pure, disinterested, Apostolic senti- 
ments of the Puritans, which have now been mentioned 
with approbation ; it would be an accomplishment, in a 
measure, of that prayer which Jesus offered up the same 
night in which he was betrayed : Neither pray I for 
these alone, but for them also who shall believe on me 
through their word ; that they all may he one ; as thou, 
Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be 
one in us; that the world may believe that thou hast 
sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me, I have 
given them ; that they may be one, even as we are one; 
I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made per- 
fect in one ; and that the world may know that thou hast 
sent me, and hast loved them as thou hast loved me." 



HIGH CHURCH PRINCIPLE. 



181 



How insignificant do all outward forms, ceremonial ob- 
servances, party names, and worldly interests appear, 
when we turn our thoughts to that cordial love and union 
among all true believers, by which this prayer of our 
blessed Saviour would be fulfilled ! Let the followers of 
Christ, however distinguished by different names, and 
by dwelling in different places, concur, in their feelings 
and words and actions, with the holy intercessions of him 
who died for them ; and then the world shall see what 
Christianity is, and be constrained to repeat the saying — 
Behold, how these Christians love one another ! What 
is the zeal and arguing and strife of men in favor of 
their own party — what is it all worth, compared with a 
good like this ! 

I have referred to a small company of Puritans, as 
men who breathed the spirit of the gospel, and cherish- 
ed a fraternal affection towards all who loved the Lord 
Jesus. And I have the pleasure to say, that much of 
the same spirit has prevailed and now prevails among 
the different classes of non-Episcopal ministers and 
Christians in this country ; and would prevail still more 
extensively, w^ere it not constantly annoyed and chilled 
by the narrow exclusiveness and haughty bigotry of 
High churchmen. So far as my knowledge extends, 
Congregational ministers in New England are disposed 
to maintain a free Christian and ministerial intercourse 
with Episcopal ministers. They do indeed sustain their 
own denomination, as a branch of the Christian church; 
but not to the exclusion of other branches. Neither 
their pulpits, nor their churches, nor their institutions, 
nor their hearts, are exclusive. They adhere zealously 
to Congregationalism; but they indignantly reject the 



182 



LECTURE VII. 



idea, that other denominations of evangelical Christians 
do not belong to the true church, and do not enjoy the 
presence and favor of the Head of the church, as really 
as themselves. And they are at all times ready, by their 
prayers and their labors, to promote the success of the 
gospel among those who adopt different modes of church 
order. And I believe that a similar spirit of brotherly 
kindness prevails, in a good degree, among the principal 
denominations of evangelical Christians in America. 

Bishop De Lancey, in the sermon before mentioned, 
speaks of the v^ide-spreading bodies of Christians" in 
Massachusetts, " who look with hostility or apathy upon" 
Episcopalians. Now why does he say this ? I consider 
this Seminary to be the child of Congregationalism, 
which has always been the predominant form of religion 
in this State. The Seminary was founded by Congre- 
gationalists ; and its affairs have been administered in 
accordance with the general principles and feelings of 
Congregation alists. And all the manifestation which 
has here been made of either " hostility or apathy" to- 
wards Episcopalians, has been this, — that we have re- 
ceived a large number of young men, who have been 
and have been known to be Episcopalians, — we have 
received just as large a number of them as have been 
pleased to come here, and have granted them all the 
common privileges of the Institution, and have exercised 
towards them, as they will testify, the same friendship as 
to any others, and if they have desired it, as many of 
them have, — we have aided them in preparing for the 
Episcopal church by our charity funds. This has been 
the course we have uniformly pursued, with the concur- 
rence of all concerned in the government of the Institu- 



HIGH CHURCH PRINCIPLE. 183 

tion, from the beginning to the present time. Nor is 
there to be any change in this respect. I do not men- 
tion this treatment of those who have been training up 
for the ministry and the missionary service in the Epis- 
copal church, as a matter of boasting, or as conferring 
any particular obligation on Episcopalians. We have 
done it from a desire to advance the common welfare of 
the true church of Christ, by introducing into every 
branch of it, learned, pious, and faithful ministers. I re- 
fer to this fact, with which I happen to be familiar, and 
I might refer to many other facts, to show, that Congre- 
gationalism, though always ready to protest against what- 
ever taint of Romanism remains among Episcopalians, 
feels neither " hostility" nor ^' apathy," but hearty good 
will towards them, as one of the branches of the Chris- 
tian Church, and is always happy to join in the noble 
and successful efforts which they are making, both here 
and in Great Britain, to promote the true interest of 
Christ^s kingdom. 

And now, as I have taken pains to show, that non- 
Episcopal Christians, particularly the Puritans, possess, 
in some good measure, though still far less than they 
ought, the spirit of forbearance and active, brotherly 
kindness towards Christians belonging to the Episcopal 
church ; I shall adduce one particular instance, in addi- 
tion to the many instances which have been alluded to, 
of the right spirit among Episcopalians, — that is, the 
spirit of sincere brotherly love and confidence towards 
Christians of other denominations. And I shall adduce 
this instance, because it is recent, and because our reli- 
gious community has been deeply impressed with it. I 
refer to the case of Mar Yohannan, the Nestorian Bish- 



184 



LECTURE VII. 



op. The Reverend Prelate of the Diocese of Western 
New York, in the sermon which I have repeatedly men- 
tioned, makes a very particular reference to the remarks 
of Mar Yohannan, to prove, what no intelligent person 
has doubted, that the Nestorians are Episcopalians in 
their mode of worship and Church government; that 
they have three sacred orders, Bishops, Priests, and 
Deacons, though nine degrees of clergy ; that the Bish- 
ops ordain, that they have Prayer Books, etc. All this 
is plain. Now if it is proper to refer to Mar Yohannan 
to show that he and his Nestorian brethren hold to the 
Episcopal scheme of church order, it is equally proper 
to refer to him to show, that they, in common with many 
English and American Episcopalians, hold to it without 
bigotry, and in the exercise of fervent brotherly affection 
towards Christians of other denominations. Mar Yo- 
hannan and his brethren from the first welcomed the 
arrival of our Missionaries, and gladly opened their 
houses and their churches to them as ministers of Christ, 
who were sent there, not to dispute about rites and cere- 
monies and forms of worship, but to preach Christ cru- 
cified. And there, in that distant region, among those 
poor and oppressed Nestorians, you behold an example of 
mutual love and confidence and Christian cooperation be- 
tween Episcopalians and non-Episcopalians, upon which 
the God of all grace, the Father of all believers, has 
looked with special favor. The whole affair is fully set 
forth in the excellent publication of the Rev. Justin 
Perkins, D. D. But because Mar Yohannan, while on 
a visit to this country, manifested a special attachment 
to the worthy missionary under whose protection he had 
been placed, and ardent love and gratitude to those min- 



HIGH CHURCH PRINCIPLE. 



185 



isters and Christians who had done so much for the spir- 
itual good of his afflicted people, he was compelled to 
witness a striking development of that unchristian exclu- 
siveness, against which I have given and must still give 
my most earnest protestation. In the Churchman, an 
Episcopal paper of New York, the High-church Episco- 
palians made a direct attack upon the Nestorian Bishop, 
calling in question his title to the office of a Prelate and 
the orthodoxy of his people, and then signifying that he 
ought to be censured, and excluded from their commu- 
nion, because he had kept company and prayed with 
other denominations of Christians, and had suffered and 
encouraged Missionaries of the American Board to offi- 
ciate as clergymen among the Nestor ians. 

Now there is nothing which excites, in the minds of 
men in general, feelings of stronger disapprobation and 
abhorrence, than unprovoked and wanton injury com- 
mitted against a meek, inoffensive, and kind-hearted 
man. But the good Bishop answers for himself. And 
the whole of his answer, as translated by Mr. Perkins, 
may be seen in the volume referred to, called A Resi- 
dence OF Eight Years in Persia." I shall quote only 
a part. He writes thus. 

My brethren of the Episcopalians : 

What evil or wicked thing have I wrought in relation 
to you, that some of you should wTite about me in your 
Newspapers, and scatter them through all America? I 
am a poor man, and my nation is poor. T came to thank 
Christians in this country for having helped us, and to 
ask them to help us more, for the name of the Lord 
Jesus Christ. We are members one of another. 



186 



LECTURE VII. 



Well ; if you had desired our good, would you not some- 
times have inquired of me thus : what is the condition 
of your people in that land of heathens ? Is there a 
church there? Are there good men ? Are there tokens 
of the influence of the Holy Spirit ? What is the state 
of knowledge and instruction? What are the morals? 
But from very few of you have 1 heard one of these 
questions. You ask, how many orders have you 1 My 
friends, forms are nothing, Neither is circumcision 

anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature." 

Shall we place our confidence in name, or forms? No; 
but in the Lamb of God, who descended from his throne 
on high to save that which was lost. Observe and be- 
hold. The Creator of the heights and the depths did 
not demean himself so loftily as some denominations, 

who say, We are ; there is no other true church, 

Your church came out from the church of the Pope. 
Is there not some leaven of the Pope still remaining in 

many of you ? What are those pictures in some of 

your churches! This is a mark of the Pope. Mark 

that second commandment, — Thou shalt not make unto 
thee any likeness of anything in heaven above, nor in 
the earth beneath, nor in the waters under the earth. 
Another commandment of God is. Love your neighbours 
as yourselves. — ^But you say, our church is great. 
Very well. Your church has become great, has it? 
Why? That it may despise small churches? Our Lord 
— says, whoever will be greatest, let him be servant of 
all. This haughtiness is another mark of the Pope, who 
teaches that none will be saved who are out of his 

church. Come let us see ; has our Lord pronounced 

blessings on the proud, or on the meeJc 1- 1 do not say 



HIGH CHURCH PRINCIPLE. 187 

your way [church polity] is not a good one, — very good, 
if you properly follow it ; not in exclusiveness and osten- 
tation, saying we are the only true church ; nor in hypo- 
crisy. 1 love Episcopalians, and Congregationalists, 

and Presbyterians, and Dutchmen, and Lutherans, and 
Methodists, and Baptists, — all, as brethren in Christ, 

We open our churches to their Priests, and receive 

them as the Priests of God. Our Lord said — whoso- 
ever receiveth a Prophet in the name of a Prophet, shall 

receive a Prophet's reward. Thus have we learned 

from our Lord. 

You are displeased with me, are you, because I have 
associated with the Presbyterians and Congregational- 
ists? 1 do not practise partiality. Is it very strange, 

that I associate most with Presbyterians and Congrega- 
tionalists ? No. They are equally our brethren ; and 
they have come and helped us in books and teachers, 
and have done a great and good work for our nation. 
Ought I to abandon them ? It would be a black re- 
proach and a great sin for us thus to abuse the good 
they have done for us. God would be displeased with 
us for such — ingratitude. But we will never be un- 
mindful of their beneficence. Shall we abuse the 

good work which they have done for us? Never. We 

must obey God rather than man. We all have one 

Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of our 
Lord Jesus Christ, who is over all and in all ; over us, 
over you, and over them, and will judge us all at the last 
day; and if found at his right hand, will raise us all to 
the same heaven. We shall dwell in peace together 
there. May the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ3 the 



188 



LECTURE VII. 



love of God the Father, and the communion of the Holy 
Spirit be with us all forever. Amen. 

Your — unworthy Christian brother, 

Mar Yohannan." 

November, 1842» 

I have thus given ^^ine upon line,'' because I wish to 
promote love and harmony among all who are the follow- 
ers of Jesus, and to make the impression deep and per- 
manent, that if we look with disdain upon any true and 
faithful ministers of the gospel, or if we denounce or dis- 
own them, because they follow not with us;" He who 
searcheth the heart, will say to us, ye know not what 
manner of spirit ye are of." 

And now, before leaving this point, let me say, al- 
though the evil against which I have urged my last and 
my strongest objection, is of such a nature, and has so 
tenacious a hold upon the mind and heart, that it is not 
at all likely to be cured by human arguments or persua- 
sions, — it can be cured by the influence of the divine 
Spirit, and the events of the divine administration. Let 
the Spirit of God visit one of our cities, where there are 
Episcopal ministers holding the High church principle, 
and evangelical ministers of other denominations, with 
their respective churches. Let the Bishop and his cler- 
gy, and the other ministers of the gospel be brought to 
feel and act as the Apostle Paul did at Ephesus, and 
elsewhere, who served the Lord with all humility of 
mind, and with many tears," earnestly desiring the con- 
version of sinners and the enlargement of Christ's spirit- 
ual kingdom, warning every one day and night with 
tears," and determined to know nothing save Jesus 



HIGH CHURCH PRINCIPLE. 189 



Christ and him crucified or rather, let them harmonize 
in their affections and desires with the Blessed Redeem- 
er, who came to save that which was lost, and whose 
love for the souls of sinners was so great, that he died 
for their salvation, and who now reigns over all for the 
good of his people; let them go forth to their sacred 
work from day to day with this state of mind, declaring 
all the counsel of God, and yet feeling that ^' neither is 
he that planteth anything, nor he that watereth, but 
God Vv^ho giveth the increase," and offering up fervent 
prayer that the Holy Spirit may be sent down from 
heaven to give success to their labors ; and let them 
find, that the worldly, the profane, the thoughtless, the 
fashionable and gay, the ambitious, the impure, the neg- 
lecters of public worship, the open enemies of godliness, 
are convinced of sin, and disposed to inquire what they 
shall do to be saved ; and, in due time, let them see, that 
multitudes have experienced that work of God in the 
soul, which is so unspeakably precious and glorious, — 
the reneimng of the Holy Ghost that, like the Corin- 
thian believers, they are washed and justified and sanc- 
tified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit 
of their God that they repent and believe ; that they 
put away all malice and guile, and envy, and evil speak- 
ing, and every form of sin ; that they love one another 
with pure hearts fervently ; that they abound in the 
fruits of the Spirit, and are striving to be ^' complete in 
all the will of God — let the Bishop and his clergy 
survey their own churches, and the churches of other 
ministers, and witness the evidences and results of this 
happy work, and see, with their own eyes, and with glad 
hearts, how far, in the state of individuals and families, 



190 



LECT U RE VII. 



and in the whole condition of society, old things are 
done away, and all things become new and let it be 
manifest to them, that this blessed transformation of 
thousands and thousands, of different ages and condi- 
tions, and among the different denominations, has been 
effected, not by the influence of any exciting human 
machinery, but by the power of plain, simple gospel 
truth, and love, and importunate prayer, on man's part, 
and by an effectual, renovating, all-subduing energy on 
God's part ; and let it be perfectly manifest to them, 
that He, to whom the kingdom belongs, has given to 
other ministers the same indubitable tokens of his gra- 
cious presence, approbation and blessing, as to them- 
selves; and let their own hearts all the while be filled 
with the Spirit of holiness, and with the blessedness of 
communion with their merciful God and Saviour ; — let 
all this take place ; and, if I mistake not, the claim of 
exclusive rights and privileges, and exclusive authority, 
would pass away into the land of forgetfulness, and the 
Bishop and his clergy would feel as Peter did, after he 
had been instructed by a vision not to call that common 
or unclean which God had cleansed ; and looking upon 
the ministers and churches of other names around them, 
thus visited with the Holy Spirit, would yield their pre- 
judices, as Peter did his, to divine teaching, and would 
say with him ; — Forasmuch as God hath given them the 
like gift as unto us, what are we, that we should with- 
stand God? Such a work of God's Spirit would lift 
them up above the low, dark, unhealthy atmosphere where 
error dwells. And in that higher state of illumination 
and spirituality, where they would see things as they 
are, they would quickly find themselves released from 



HIGH CHURCH PRINCIPLE. 191 

the evil principle inherent in their system of exclusive- 
ness, and the arguments which they had been accus- 
tomed to urge in its favor, would weigh nothing, being 
evidently built upon false conceptions of the nature and 
objects of the reign of Christ. 

But if there should be no such glorious dispensation 
of the Spirit in our day, and the evil which I have labor- 
ed to expose, should for the present remain ; it will not 
remain forever. A day is coming when every one who 
holds the sacred office, shall stand before Christ, not to 
judge others, but to he judged. It will be a heart-search- 
ing, all-revealing day ; and, in the clear light which will 
then shine, who can tell how many discoveries will be 
made, and how many mistakes will be corrected ? True 
gospel ministers who were never ordained by a Bishop, 
will be there, — and so many that no man can number 
them, — whom the Lord of all will acknowledge to have 
been his ministers, and to whom he will say, well done, 
good and faithful servants ; enter ye into the joy of your 
Lord." Those who have set themselves up as the only 
true ministers of the gospel, will hear this approving 
sentence, and will learn at last, how great has been the 
difference between their judgment, and the judgment of 
Christ. There will be Episcopal ministers, more than 
can be numbered, whom the righteous Judge will also 
graciously own and reward, not because they were Epis- 
copally ordained, but because they were good and 
faithful servants,'^ And there will doubtless be a great 
multitude, — and no one knows how great that multitude 
will be, — who were introduced into the ministry by the 
authority of a Bishop, and in other ways, but were un- 
godly men and enemies to the cross of Christ, and to 



192 



LECTURE VII. 



whom the Judge will say, — / nevei- knew you, depart 
from me, ye workers of iniquity. This solemn and irre- 
versible sentence upon good and faithful ministers, and 
upon those of a contrary character, will come from him 
who looketh not on the outward appearance, but on the 
heart, and who judgeth righteous judgment ; and all his 
ministers and people will say, Amen. 

I have now given free utterance to the convictions of 
my reason and conscience, and the feelings of my heart, 
respecting the exclusive principle of the High church- 
men. This is a principle, however, which I cannot 
find in their Book of Common Prayer, nor in their 
Thirty Nine Articles, nor in their rules for ordaining 
ministers. It is a principle, which bears too obvious 
and striking a likeness to one of the first principles of 
the Papists, who acknowledge none to be ministers or 
Christians, except those who belong to their communion, 
— High churchmen themselves, in their turn, falling 
under the sentence of exclusion and condemnation from 
the Higher churchmen at Rome. 

But before I close, I have a few words to say respect- 
ing the Episcopal scheme, understood in a more ration- 
al, mild, and charitable manner, as it is by so many 
worthy Episcopal ministers, who are called ^'Low church- 
men," — a very improper designation, I think, seeing 
they adopt principles far higher and nobler than the other 
party. Now I maintain that Episcopal ministers of what 
I call the more reasonable, charitable school, if they are 
truly upright and pious, and entertain Scriptural views 
of religion, must be subjected to som.e special inconve- 
niences and difficulties. And my apprehension is, that, 



HIGH CHURCH PRINCIPLE. 193 

if some young men, who are inclined to receive orders 
in the Episcopal church, would take pains beforehand, 
to get a just view of all that is implied in the contempla- 
ted transaction, they would start back from it, and by 
no means consent to put themselves under such unwel- 
come and revolting obligations. This was the case re- 
cently, as I am informed, of a young man of high prom- 
ise in one of our cities. Just before the time fixed for 
his ordination, he had a free conversation with the Bish- 
op, and from him he learned, that if he received orders, 
he would not he allowed to have ministerial or ecclesias- 
tical fellowship with any clergymen or churches of other 
denominations^ or practically to achiowledge any one as 
authorized to preach and administer the sacraments^ with- 
out Episcopal ordination. The young man respectfully 
told the Bishop, that he could not proceed. And I am 
informed that he is far enough from repenting of his 
decision. 

But the inconveniences and difficulties alluded to, be- 
come more apparent and formidable in relation to those, 
who enter the Episcopal church after having, for a con- 
siderable time, sustained the office of gospel ministers 
in other denominations. I shall explain my meaning by 
an example. And I can fix upon no one better adapted 
to my object, than the late Edward Payson. I will 
suppose then, that he is still alive, and that after he has 
been a Congregational minister for a quarter of a century, 
it becomes a serious inquiry with him, whether he shall 
change his denomination and be an Episcopal minister, 
— not however as a matter of conscience, but because he 
is aware of some defects in Congregationalism, and looks 
with peculiar satisfaction upon the more exact rules of 
13 



194 



LECTURE VII. 



order in the Episcopal church. But Dr. Payson is not 
a man, that will take a step of such moment to himself 
and others, without much serious thought, and much 
prayer for divine direction. He sits down, therefore, 
deliberately to examine the matter, and to count the cost, 
and to satisfy himself what the Lord would have him to 
do. So far as appears from the Prayer Book, one of 
the first things to be done in order to his being admitted 
into the Episcopal church, is, to satisfy the Bishop, that 
he can say the Creeds the Lord^s Prayer, and the Ten 
Commandments, and can also answer such questions as are 
contained in the Church Catechism ; and that, on this 
condition, he is to receive confirmation, just as a child 
does, and to be admitted to the Lord's Supper. — He finds 
too, that, if he takes orders in the Episcopal church, he 
will be held, though entirely contrary to his inclinations, 
to act on the exclusive principle. The Bishop will not 
admit him to preach and administer the ordinances on the 
ground of his previous ordination. Had he never been 
ordained, one great difficulty would be avoided. But 
although he verily believes that he has been called of 
God, and duly ordained, and has, for so many years, 
been authorized to fill the office of a gospel minister, 
he must, hy a 'public act, renounce it all, and count it 
for nothing, and receive ordination, just as though he 
had never been ordained. He has preached the gospel 
and administered the Sacraments to thousands, very 
much to their edification, and with great enjoyment in 
his own soul. But he must now, hy a public act, de- 
clare, that he has never had any warrant from God to 
minister in holy things, and that all he has done in the 
ministerial office, though fraught with such benefits to 



HIGH CHURCH PRINCIPLE. 



195 



multitudes, has been without validity. His labors have, 
in an unusual degree, been accompanied v^ith the bless- 
ing of Almighty God, and he can look upon many hun- 
dred Christians, and a number of gospel ministers, who 
are the seals of his ministry, and will be his joy and 
crown at the appearing of Jesus Christ. But he must 
now, in the face of the world, engage in a transaction, 
which implies, and is understood to imply, that all his 
pious and successful labors have been performed without 
any just authority, and contrary to the will of his Lord 
and Master. — If he becomes an Episcopal minister, it 
will be his desire freely to indulge the kind fraternal af- 
fections of his own large heart towards those good men, 
who have been his fellow-laborers in the vineyard of 
Christ, and with whom he has so often united in improv- 
ing conversation and in fervent prayer, and still to ac- 
knowledge them and walk with them as ministers of the 
gospel ; — for they are not changed, except for the better ; 
and his own heart is not changed towards them. But 
he will be compelled to resist all these lovely and hal- 
lowed inclinations of his own heart, and to sacrifice the 
heaven-born principle of unity and fellowship among the 
servants of Christ, and publicly to separate himself from 
those brethren, whom he has so sincerely esteemed and 
loved, and who have, with equal sincerity, esteemed and 
loved him ; — and all this, not for any cause existing in 
them, or in him, nor out of regard to the mind of Christ, 
or to anything in the law or the gospel, — but merely be- 
cause he has entered the Episcopal church, and placed 
himself under a Bishop. — He has assisted in setting 
apart many well qualified young men to the ministry by 
prayer and the laying on of hands, and has rejoiced to 



196 



LE CTURE VII. 



see with what ability and diligence they have executed 
the office committed to them, and what tokens of divine 
favor have attended them. But the moment the hands 
of the Bishop are laid on him, he must in fact, though 
contrary to all the impulses of his heart, keep himself at 
a distance from all these servants of Christ; must disal- 
low the validity of their ordinations, and must have no 
more ministerial intercourse with any of them, — although 
they are his beloved brethren and fellow-laborers as truly 
as before, and some of them his own spiritual children, 
for whom he travailed in birth,'' and whom he instruct- 
ed and confirmed in the faith of the gospel, and whom 
he did, in connection with others, so solemnly and de* 
voutly consecrate to their high and holy vocation. His 
heart will cleave to his brethren, and will desire to have 
fellowship with them, as in the happy days that are past, 
and will deplore the hard necessity which binds him to 
break asunder so many tender ties. But if he puts him- 
self under the sway of Prelacy, he must submit to its 
dictates, and by an unwilling and constrained practice, 
must support its exclusive claims. — He has been accus- 
tomed, on all occasions, to offer up prayer to God in the 
sanctuary, with great freedom, according to the various 
promptings of his own fervent mind, and with the unc- 
tion of the Holy Spirit. But how can such prayer, or 
the spiritual benefits of it continue, when he comes to 
be confined to forms, most of them written ages of ages 
ago, and is not permitted to express a thought or utter 
a word, except what is in the Book before him, or ever 
in any circumstances, to deviate from the same round of 
devotions. And how irksome must this perpetual con- 
finement to written forms be to one who has so long 



HIGH CHURCH PRINCIPLE, 



197 



worshipped God, as the Apostles and Primitive Christians 
did, when the Spirit helped their infirmities, and taught 
them how to pray, and what to pray for ! — But a still 
greater difficulty remains. For every time he adminis- 
ters Baptism to children, he must solemnly and expressly 
declare, that God does then regenerate them hy his 
Holy Spirit, and receive them for his own children hy 
adoption,^^ — although he does not believe the sentiment 
he expresses, and while he utters it with his lips, must 
have an honest, but painful consciousness, that such a 
baptismal service is not right in the sight of God. 

These are the leading circumstances of the case, 
which come before the mind of that good man. And 
they bring him to a pause. And in view of the whole 
matter, he says within himself ; — hoiv can I think it to 
he the will of my Lord, whom I have so long served in 
the ministry, and hefore whom I must shortly stand, 
that 1 should take the step which I have been consider- 
ing ? Why shoidd I give up all that has heen scriptu- 
ral, and pure, and precious in my own ministry, and 
practically disoivn all who remain in that condition, in 
which I have spent so many years inith so much comfort ? 
Whatever young men, who are less mindful of dificul- 
ties, may deem it proper to do; ivhy should I, at this 
late period of my ministry and my life, hreah so many 
sacred bonds, and inflict so many wounds on myself and 
others, and voluntarily expose myself to so many dreaded 
difficulties and sacrifices ? Why should I thrust my- 
self into a place, where I shall be compelled, in some 
things, to act against the convictions of my conscience, 
and, in many things, against the best feelings of my 
heart 7 



198 CONCLUSION. 



I have now finished what I intended. Men of discern- 
ment will doubtless discover in these Lectures some- 
thing wrong in the matter, or in the manner, or in 
both. And so far as they will make that wrong mani- 
fest, they will subserve the cause of truth. The contro- 
versy respecting Prelacy is doubtless to be continued, — 
but not by me. Whatever remains to be done in the 
way of research, explanation, and argument, must de- 
volve upon those who are younger than I, and who pos- 
sess higher qualifications, and are not so averse to con- 
troversy. A man who has lived three score years and 
ten, and who is called to fill an office so laborious and 
difficult, as mine, should remember how short his time 
is, and, instead of entangling himself with protracted dis-* 
putes about the outward forms or any of the non-essen- 
tials of religion, should pursue steadily his great object, 
and give all diligence to finish the work which God has 
given him to do. 



END. 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: April 2006 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

111 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township. PA 16066 
(724) 779-2111 



